Feyziyev v The Journalism Development Network Association & Anor

In determining the natural and ordinary meaning of allegedly defamatory words, the court must assess the publication as a whole from the perspective of the hypothetical reasonable reader. The court may use Chase levels as helpful shorthand, but they are not a straitjacket. The significance of qualified language depends on its context, readership and mode of publication. An investigative article may convey reasonable or strong grounds for suspicion without alleging guilt, particularly where its language contrasts with direct allegations made against others and includes disclaimers or uncertainty. The repetition rule and the bane-and-antidote principle must be applied to the overall impression created by the publication.

The claimant, a member of the Azerbaijani parliament, brought a libel claim concerning two online articles about the alleged Azerbaijani Laundromat money-laundering operation. He alleged that the articles accused him of participating in money laundering and bribery, or stated that there were very strong grounds for suspicion. The defendants contended that the articles conveyed only that there were grounds, or strong grounds, to suspect such involvement.

The hearing concerned the natural and ordinary meaning of each article, together with the claimant’s application to strike out parts of the Defence and obtain further information concerning the public-interest defence.

1. The court rejected a Chase Level One meaning. The First Article conveyed that there were reasonable grounds to suspect that the claimant, through AvroMed, had engaged or assisted in illegal money laundering and large-scale bribery. The Second Article conveyed that there were strong grounds for the same suspicion.

2. The task was to determine the single natural and ordinary meaning which the hypothetical reasonable reader would understand. The publication had to be read as a whole, taking account of its context, intended readership and mode of publication. The court was entitled to test its initial impression by limited critical analysis, but should avoid strained or over-elaborate interpretation.

3. The Chase levels were useful shorthand, not mandatory categories. The phrase reasonable grounds to suspect derived from the police-investigation context in Lewis v Daily Telegraph [1954] AC 234, and its implications could vary in another context.

4. In the First Article, the Laundromat was presented as established fact, but the references to AvroMed and the claimant were guarded and indirect. The word likely allowed for mistaken identity, while the contextual distinction between the claimant and persons directly accused of complicity prevented the article from conveying guilt. The absence of material dispelling suspicion meant that suspicion remained the overall meaning.

5. The Second Article contained stronger suspicion, but also qualified statements, denials and uncertainty about the identity and ownership of the relevant companies. Those features prevented the reasonable reader from concluding that the claimant was guilty. The article could convey a compelling case to answer without conveying culpable involvement as fact.

6. The claimant’s strike-out application was granted without opposition. The defendants were ordered to serve an Amended Defence and answer outstanding requests for information insofar as relevant, without prejudice to their source-protection rights under section 10 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981.

This was a first-instance decision. Master Davison had previously ordered a trial of meaning as a preliminary issue and directed that it be heard with the claimant’s application.