Abdulrazaq v Hassan

In determining the meaning of words published in a defamation action, the court must identify the single natural and ordinary meaning conveyed to the hypothetical reasonable reader. Meaning is assessed from the publication as a whole, including its context and mode of publication, rather than through dictionary definitions or elaborate linguistic analysis.

For rapid conversational media such as WhatsApp, an impressionistic approach is particularly appropriate. The court should consider the overall debate and the immediate impression made by the exchange. Later explanations or qualifications may form part of the context, but do not necessarily remove the meaning conveyed by the original words.

The claimant and defendant were members of the Exeter Mosque community and opponents in a dispute concerning the Mosque’s administration. The defendant posted a series of allegations about the claimant in a WhatsApp group of Mosque members.

The claim proceeded to a trial of a preliminary issue directed by Master McCloud on the natural and ordinary meaning of the published statement. The claimant alleged meanings including terrorism, criminality, aggression and mental illness. The defendant contended that the words conveyed highly unreasonable and aggressive behaviour and undisclosed links to the Muslim Brotherhood.

1. Meaning of the publication. The court rejected both parties’ elaborate pleaded meanings. The statement, read in the context of the whole WhatsApp exchange, conveyed that the claimant was or had been a terrorist associated with the Muslim Brotherhood; had behaved aggressively and unreasonably; sought mediation because he feared public disclosure of wrongdoing; and was an undesirable member of the Mosque community.
2. Applicable approach. Meaning is determined according to how the hypothetical reasonable reader would understand the words. Dictionary definitions and technical parsing cannot displace the contextual assessment. The publication must be read as a whole, and the court must consider the context, mode of publication and the impression made by the words.
3. Conversational media. The impressionistic approach is especially important for rapid conversational media. The WhatsApp exchange was not to be analysed as a formal publication. The whole debate was relevant context, particularly because the claimant participated in it. The court adopted the guidance in Stocker v Stocker [2019] UKSC 17, Koutsogiannis v The Random House Group Ltd [2019] EWHC 48 (QB), Monroe v Hopkins [2017] EWHC 433 (QB), Monir v Wood [2018] EWHC (QB) 3525 and Smith v ADVFN plc [2008] EWHC 1797 (QB).
4. Application. The immediate reference to not negotiating or mediating with terrorists, followed by repeated references to the Muslim Brotherhood, linked the claimant with terrorism. Later attempts to downplay or reinterpret the allegation did not sever that connection. The words that the claimant was not all there did not convey insanity or a meaning derived from mental health legislation; they were an off-the-cuff remark without that technical significance.
5. The court determined the preliminary issue accordingly and directed that further directions and consequential orders be addressed by agreement or at a further hearing. The parties were encouraged to consider alternative dispute resolution.