Vardy v Rooney

In determining the natural and ordinary meaning of allegedly defamatory social-media publications, the court must identify the single meaning conveyed to the hypothetical ordinary reasonable reader. The publication must be read as a whole, in its context and having regard to its mode of publication. The court should avoid elaborate or overly literal analysis and must not rely on the publisher’s intention, evidence of actual readership reaction, or facts that are not common knowledge. Social-media posts may require particular attention to their immediate and impressionistic effect, but that does not prevent a carefully composed post from conveying a clear allegation of guilt rather than reasonable grounds for suspicion.

The claimant brought a libel claim concerning words published by the defendant on Instagram and Twitter. The defendant alleged that the claimant had been responsible for leaking private Instagram posts and stories to The Sun. The claimant contended that the publications accused her of repeatedly and consistently committing that conduct, while the defendant contended that they conveyed only reasonable grounds to suspect her involvement.

The parties agreed that meaning should be tried as a preliminary issue. The court was required to determine the single natural and ordinary meaning of the publications, based solely on the publications themselves and the perspective of the hypothetical ordinary reasonable reader.

1. Meaning. The publications bore a Chase level one meaning. They conveyed that, over a period of years, the claimant had regularly and frequently abused her status as a trusted follower of the defendant’s personal Instagram account by secretly informing The Sun of private posts and stories, thereby making information public without permission.
2. The governing approach was reasonableness. The publication had to be read as a whole, including the introductory words of the tweet, and the court had to avoid strained, forced or over-elaborate analysis. The court was free to select the correct meaning, subject to the pleaded maximum.
3. The social-media setting was relevant. Readers commonly absorb the essential message of Twitter and Instagram posts quickly and impressionistically. However, this publication told a considered story of investigation, proof and revelation. Its structure and language conveyed certainty rather than a mere suspicion.
4. The reference to the claimant’s Instagram “account” did not qualify the allegation. In context, the ordinary reader would understand it as another way of identifying the claimant as the wrongdoer. The possibility that celebrities may use agents or public-relations teams was not common knowledge sufficient to create a less injurious meaning. Such a case would require pleaded and proved facts supporting a reverse innuendo.
5. The preliminary issue was therefore determined in favour of the claimant. The judgment records no final determination of the substantive defences or ultimate libel claim.

The judgment was a first-instance determination of meaning as a preliminary issue. The court records that Mr Justice Nicklin had ordered the preliminary trial on 17 September 2020.