Soriano v Societe D'exploitation De L'hebdomadaire Le Point SA & Anor

In determining the meaning of allegedly defamatory words published in a foreign-language article, the court must assess the natural and ordinary meaning conveyed to the ordinary reader of the original language. The article must be read as a whole and in context. A journalist’s use of reported discourse, quotation marks, attribution and the French press conditional may convey that allegations are being reported without endorsement. Such devices do not necessarily neutralise defamatory meaning, but may place the publication at Chase level 3, conveying grounds to investigate rather than guilt or reasonable grounds to suspect guilt. The repetition rule does not prevent a publication from conveying a level 3 meaning. External facts cannot establish a true innuendo where that meaning is not pleaded.

The claimant brought a libel claim concerning a French-language article published by the defendants, a French magazine publisher and its journalist. A preliminary issue was ordered concerning the correct English translation of the words complained of and their single meaning or meanings.

The claimant alleged meanings suggesting guilt, illegality, dangerousness, unscrupulousness and links to intelligence and political figures. The defendants contended that the article conveyed only that there were grounds to investigate whether the claimant had engaged in specified activities. The court considered the expert linguistic evidence and determined the translation and natural and ordinary meaning of the French article.

1. Translation and expert evidence. The court adopted the agreed expert translation, subject to translating “relais” as “middlemen” and treating the press conditional as “reportedly”, while recognising that its precise effect might require refinement when determining meaning. Expert evidence could assist with translation and meaning, but the experts’ role was limited.
2. Meaning. Applying the principles summarised in Koutsogiannis v Random House Group [2020] 4 WLR 25, the words had to be considered as a whole and as understood by the ordinary French-speaking reader. They meant that the claimant was a spy or spook and that there were grounds to investigate whether he had used surveillance, military methods or data-interception technology, been involved in surveillance of police officers investigating President Netanyahu, or been involved in Russia’s attempted interference in the 2016 United States election.
3. The article conveyed a Chase level 3 meaning. The press conditional, reported sources, quotations, denials and other distancing devices conveyed uncertainty and indicated that the journalist did not endorse the allegations. The court rejected the claimant’s more serious meanings, including guilt, reasonable grounds to suspect guilt, illegality, aggressivity, dangerousness, unscrupulousness and legally significant connections with Donald Trump’s circle or a former KGB agent.
4. The court rejected the “Rogues Gallery” argument. The references to other persons did not materially alter the meaning. The repetition rule did not prevent a publication from conveying no more than a Chase level 3 meaning, applying the discussion in Hewson v Times Newspapers Ltd [2019] EWHC 650 (QB).

The preliminary issue was determined accordingly. The court did not finally decide whether the meanings were defamatory at common law.