Muhammad Ziaullah Khan Chishti v Tatiana Spottiswoode & Ors

Meaning in libel proceedings is determined objectively by the single natural and ordinary meaning conveyed to the hypothetical reasonable reader. The court must read the publication as a whole, in its published context and without over-elaborate analysis. Hyperlinked or expandable material is relevant only where it can reasonably be expected to be known or read by the publishees.

Allegations may be assessed by reference to the Chase levels, but those levels are guidance rather than rigid categories. Attribution, denials and reports that allegations are unproven do not necessarily prevent the repetition rule from applying. A publication may therefore convey a level 1 imputation where its overall tenor presents allegations as indicating an underlying scandal.

The claimant brought libel proceedings concerning two articles published by the third defendant about allegations made by a former employee, Tatiana Spottiswoode. He had undertaken not to proceed against the first and second defendants. The court determined, without a hearing, the preliminary issues of the single natural and ordinary meaning of each article and whether that meaning was defamatory at common law.

The central issues were whether expandable online material and a related newspaper article formed part of the relevant context, whether the publications imputed grooming while the complainant was a child, and what level of defamatory meaning the articles conveyed.

1. Objective meaning. The court applied the ordinary reasonable reader test. The reader considers the publication as a whole, reading it once in its relevant context, without special knowledge, literalism or strained textual analysis. The publisher’s intention is irrelevant. The court must determine the single meaning it considers correct, subject to not selecting a meaning more injurious than the pleaded meaning.
2. Context and hyperlinks. Context may include common knowledge, matters incorporated by express reference and directly available context, but material which could not reasonably be expected to be known or read by all publishees is impermissible. The expandable box containing testimony was an optional extra rather than an integral part of the online article. It was therefore excluded from the natural and ordinary meaning exercise. The two hard-copy articles, however, were properly read together because the first directed readers to the second.
3. Meaning conveyed. Reading the articles as a whole, the ordinary reader would understand that, after being introduced by her father when she was thirteen and he was an adult, the claimant groomed Ms Spottiswoode with sexual intent. He later pursued her through inducements and threats, culminating in a brief adult sexual relationship which was abusive and violent and which she terminated.
4. Chase level and repetition. The publications conveyed a level 1 factual imputation. Their attribution of the allegations to the complainant, inclusion of the claimant’s denial, and reference to an investigation and an earlier conclusion that the allegations were untrue did not take them outside the repetition rule or reduce them below level 1. Their strong tenor was that the company was under pressure over an actual sexual assault scandal, going beyond a report of mere suspicion.
5. Defamatory character. The meaning substantially affected, or had a tendency substantially to affect, the attitude of other people towards the claimant. It was plainly defamatory at common law. The court accordingly determined the preliminary issues in the claimant’s favour.