Yavuz v Tesco Stores Ltd & Anor

For a slander claim, the claimant must prove both that the words were spoken and, under Defamation Act 2013, section 1, that publication caused or was likely to cause serious harm to reputation.

Serious harm is assessed by combining the inherent tendency of the words with their actual or likely impact. The assessment is not simply a numbers exercise. The identity and quality of the publishees, whether the allegation connected with the claimant, and the possibility of repetition or grapevine spread are important. A grave allegation published to a small number of unidentified persons may nevertheless fail to satisfy the threshold.

The claimant brought claims in slander and trespass to the person against Tesco arising from an incident at a self-service checkout. She alleged that a Tesco employee called her a thief, compelled her to make a second payment, and grabbed her arm.

Tesco denied speaking the words or touching her. It also contended that, even if the words had been spoken, they had not caused serious harm under section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013. The court therefore considered the factual allegations, the serious-harm threshold, and the possible measure of damages.

1. Disposition. The claim was dismissed. Judgment was entered for the defendants.
2. The claimant bore the burden of proving on the balance of probabilities that the words complained of were spoken and that the alleged trespass occurred. On the evidence, the court found that the employee had not called the claimant a thief and had not grabbed her arm. The probable explanation was that a payment had not been properly recorded by Tesco’s system, and that the claimant mistakenly interpreted an explanation that payment remained outstanding as an accusation of theft.
3. The court considered serious harm as an alternative ground. Under section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013, the question concerns the actual or likely impact of publication, assessed by reference to both the inherent tendency of the words and their actual impact. A grave allegation may have an inherent tendency to cause serious harm, but publication to only a few people does not automatically satisfy the statutory threshold.
4. Relevant considerations included the likely number of hearers, the extent to which they actually heard and believed the words, whether they knew the claimant, whether the allegation connected with her in their minds, and whether it was likely to spread. The assessment was not merely a numbers game. Here, the likely hearers were unidentified customers who did not know the claimant. There was no evidence of belief, repetition, or grapevine effect. Serious harm was therefore not established even if the words had been spoken.
5. The court also observed that any damages for a brief arm-grab without physical injury would have been modest, and that damages for a slander heard by very few unidentified people would have been at the lowest end of the range. Those observations were unnecessary to the result.

First-instance decision. No prior appellate decision is stated in the judgment.