Sharif v Associated Newspapers Ltd (Rev 1)

In determining meaning in a defamation claim, the court must read the publication as a whole and ask how the ordinary reasonable reader would understand it. The judge’s initial reaction as a reader is important, and elaborate analysis should be avoided. The repetition rule is not mechanical: its effect depends on the overall presentation, including any bane and antidote. A publication may convey guilt at Chase level 1 despite reporting allegations by investigators where the allegations are presented as established fact and the denial or other qualifications provide no effective antidote. The meaning should identify the defamatory imputation concerning the claimant and should not unnecessarily expand the parameters of a truth defence by including wrongdoing by other persons.

Two separate libel claims concerned the same Mail on Sunday article about alleged embezzlement and laundering of Pakistani public funds, including UK foreign aid. The claimants were Mian Muhammad Shabaz Sharif, a Pakistani politician and former Chief Minister of Punjab, and Imran Ali Yousaf, his son-in-law.

Before service of a defence, the court was asked to determine the natural and ordinary meaning of the article as it affected each claimant. The defendant’s meanings were also defamatory, so the second proposed preliminary issue did not require determination. The central questions were the Chase level of the allegations, the effect of the article’s reporting of investigators’ claims and denials, and the proper scope of each claimant’s meaning.

1. Meaning and method. The court applied the established approach in Koutsogiannis v Random House Group [2020] 4 WLR 25. The article had to be read as a whole, without reference initially to the parties’ pleaded meanings or submissions. The ordinary reasonable reader’s initial reaction was an important guide. The repetition rule had to be applied alongside the other contextual factors, including bane and antidote.
2. Mr Sharif. The article presented money laundering as established fact. Its limited denials and references to political motivation did not provide an effective antidote. The meaning was Chase level 1: Mr Sharif was party to and the principal beneficiary of laundering tens of millions of pounds representing the proceeds of his embezzlement, while Chief Minister of Punjab, including substantial British public money paid as DFID grant aid and other corrupt payments in the form of kickbacks or commission.
3. Focus on the claimant. Although the article alleged wrongdoing by Mr Sharif’s family, the meaning had to focus on the defamatory allegation concerning Mr Sharif personally. This preserved proper parameters for any truth defence and avoided unnecessary disputes about the admissibility and relevance of other persons’ conduct.
4. Mr Yousaf. The specific allegation concerning the £1 million received from ERRA funds was Chase level 1. The reference to Ikram Naveed as Mr Yousaf’s right-hand man and Mr Yousaf’s immediate benefit from the embezzled money conveyed personal knowledge and involvement. The wider family allegation was Chase level 2 because it created suspicion about his benefit and knowledge without sufficient material to establish guilt.
5. Orders. Both meanings were defamatory at common law. The costs of determining meaning were ordered to be costs in the case. There was no clear winner and neither party had adopted an unreasonable position.