Sellers v Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth And Development Affairs & Anor

Meaning in a defamation claim is determined by the natural and ordinary meaning conveyed to the hypothetical ordinary and reasonable reader, assessed in its full context. A communication summarising an allegation for an investigation may convey reasonable grounds to suspect the alleged conduct, rather than an assertion that it occurred or stronger grounds to suspect it. Routine announcements that an employee has left office do not become defamatory merely because they omit reasons, praise or other contextual information. An alleged implication must have a basis in the published words or their context; readers who speculate without such a basis are avid for scandal.

The claimant, formerly Country Director of the British Council in Italy, brought a libel claim concerning three emails sent in January and May 2019. The first email summarised a sexual misconduct complaint for persons involved in an investigation. The second and third emails announced that the claimant had left the British Council and identified interim leaders of its Italian operations.

On written submissions, the court was directed to determine the natural and ordinary meaning of the emails and whether the meanings were defamatory. The central issues were whether the first email conveyed an allegation at the level of reasonable suspicion and whether the later announcements conveyed an implied allegation of serious misconduct.

1. Meaning and context. The natural and ordinary meaning of a publication is assessed from the standpoint of the hypothetical ordinary and reasonable reader. Context and the circumstances of publication are of considerable importance. The court adopted the principles summarised in Koutsogiannis v The Random House Group Ltd [2019] EWHC 48 (QB); [2020] 4 WLR 25.
2. First Email. The email conveyed that there were reasonable grounds to suspect that, while under the influence of alcohol, the claimant had inappropriately kissed the complainant and deliberately rubbed his hands over her breasts in a sexual manner. It also conveyed grounds for concern about recent conduct that had been erratic and uncharacteristically emotional. The email was sent in response to a request for a summary of a complaint at the beginning of an investigation. Its recipients would understand that the sender was passing on an allegation, not adopting it as true. The court rejected the claimant’s contention that the email conveyed “strong” grounds to suspect the conduct. The presentation of the words supported the assessment of reasonable suspicion, consistently with Stocker v Stocker [2019] UKSC 17; [2020] AC 593.
3. Second and Third Emails. The second email conveyed that the claimant would leave the British Council and that interim leaders would manage its Italian operations. The third conveyed that he had left and that the same interim arrangements would apply. Neither email imputed misconduct or contained a defamatory sting. Omissions of reasons, praise or explanation did not provide a sufficient basis for the pleaded implication. The Second Email and Third Email were therefore not defamatory at common law.