Scarsdale Grange LLP (t/a Scarsdale Grange Nursing Home) v JPIMedia Nsmy Ltd & Anor

In determining meaning in a defamation claim, the court must identify the single natural and ordinary meaning conveyed to the hypothetical reasonable reader. The publication must be read as a whole, including any bane and antidote, and in its context and mode of publication. The repetition rule applies where allegations by others are republished. Context may include matters of general and common knowledge, but detailed information requiring particular research is inadmissible. A meaning may comprise both factual allegations and opinion. For a corporate claimant, an opinion that its business is being managed ineffectively, with a tendency substantially to affect attitudes towards it, is defamatory. Factual statements about inadequate PPE and untested admissions did not themselves imply fault where the surrounding circumstances included a pandemic, PPE shortages and inadequate testing.

The claimant, a nursing-home operator, brought a libel claim concerning hard-copy and online articles published by the defendants. The parties sought determination of preliminary issues concerning the natural and ordinary meaning of the words complained of, whether the meanings were defamatory at common law, and whether they were statements of fact or opinion. The preliminary issue was determined on written submissions pursuant to a consent order. The central questions were how the articles should be understood in their full context, and which parts conveyed fact or opinion.

1. Meaning. The two articles bore the same meaning. The repetition rule applied because the articles reported allegations made by care workers. The defendants had adopted those allegations, but the overall effect of each article had to be assessed.
2. The articles were a bane and antidote case. The reasonable reader would take account of the wider COVID-19 crisis, the nationwide shortage of PPE and widespread criticism of inadequate testing. These matters were general and common knowledge. The precise details of the Government’s testing commitment were not, but the general fact of criticism and an intended increase in testing was.
3. The articles did not convey that the claimant was responsible for a resident’s death, knowingly endangered staff and residents, or operated an unhygienic environment. Read as a whole, the PPE allegations conveyed a consequence of shortage rather than a deliberate money-saving measure. The articles nevertheless conveyed that the nursing home was ineffectually managing the COVID-19 crisis, thereby putting residents and employees at risk, particularly by failing to provide adequate PPE and admitting new or returning residents without testing.
4. The allegations concerning inadequate PPE and untested admissions were statements of fact. The criticism that the claimant was ineffectively managing the crisis was opinion.
5. The opinion was defamatory at common law. A nursing-home operator had responsibilities towards its staff and residents, and an opinion that it was failing adequately to discharge those responsibilities had a tendency substantially to affect adversely the attitude of others towards it.
6. The factual statements were not themselves defamatory. In the context of the pandemic, PPE shortages and inadequate testing, they did not independently convey fault or mismanagement.

First-instance determination of preliminary issues on written submissions. No earlier decision in the proceedings is stated.