Triaster Ltd v Dun & Bradstreet Ltd

In defamation claims concerning commercial credit reports, the publication must be read as a whole, together with explanatory material forming part of its context, by the hypothetical reasonable commercial reader. Statistical conclusions drawn directly from underlying data may be statements of fact, while evaluative descriptions such as a “moderate probability” of failure may be opinion. An imputation of insolvency or a significant risk of insolvency may be defamatory, but a quantified 1.79% risk of failure, properly understood, did not cross the common-law seriousness threshold. Courts should avoid converting a report’s factual and statistical content into a more damaging meaning by impermissible extrapolation.

The claimant supplied business-process software and services. The defendant produced a commercial credit report for a prospective customer, assigning the claimant a D3 rating, a failure score of 37 out of 100, a stated 1.79% incidence of failure and a maximum credit figure of £15,000.

The claimant alleged that the report conveyed that it was a serious credit risk, had poor creditworthiness and faced a real risk of failing while owing creditors money. Four preliminary issues concerned meaning, innuendo meaning, defamatory tendency and whether the statements were fact or opinion.

1. Meaning and context. The report had to be read as a whole with the Defendant’s Guide to Predictive Indicators. The guide was relevant to the natural and ordinary meaning because the rating and failure score could not properly be understood without it.
2. Meaning conveyed. The publication conveyed that the claimant had a greater-than-average risk of business failure within 12 months, amounting to a moderate probability, with a likely failure incidence of 1.79%. It did not convey that the claimant had poor creditworthiness, was a serious credit risk or faced a real risk of failure.
3. Fact and opinion. The financial-strength figure, the greater-than-average risk and the 1.79% incidence were statements of fact or secondary fact derived from data. “Moderate probability” was an evaluative and judgmental description, and therefore opinion. The £15,000 maximum-credit figure was also opinion.
4. Defamatory tendency. Imputing business failure, or a significant risk of it, may be defamatory. However, a 1.79% risk, read with the report’s explanations, would not substantially lower the claimant in the estimation of right-thinking people. The statement concerning a moderate probability was likewise not defamatory in context.
5. The claimant’s proposed meaning involved an impermissible gloss or extrapolation from the publication. The third preliminary issue was therefore decided against the claimant, and the parties were directed to draw up an order reflecting the rulings.