Denver Dorsetra Adams v Associated Newspapers Limited

Meaning in a libel claim is determined by the single natural and ordinary meaning conveyed to the hypothetical reasonable reader, reading the publication as a whole in its proper context and medium. The court may select the correct meaning rather than adopt either party’s formulation. Individual imputations should be identified where a pleaded meaning contains several distinct allegations. An inference may be a statement of fact where its factual basis is not indicated. Whether words convey fact or opinion is objective. An opinion must be recognisable as such, and its basis must be indicated.

The claimant brought a libel action concerning three substantially identical articles published in print and online. The articles alleged that the claimant had sent her daughter abusive messages. The parties agreed that this allegation was defamatory.

The court tried preliminary issues concerning meaning, defamatory tendency, fact or opinion, and whether any opinion had an indicated basis. The central disputes were whether the articles also alleged childhood neglect by the claimant, and whether the suggestion that the claimant had perpetuated earlier abuse was fact or opinion.

1. Meaning. The court determined the meaning conveyed by the three articles by considering the impression made on the hypothetical reasonable reader, reading each article once, as a whole, in its proper context and having regard to its medium. The court was not bound by either party’s proposed meaning.
2. The claimant’s pleaded meaning contained several discrete imputations. Following Sube v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2018] EMLR 693, it was important to identify them separately. The articles did not convey that the claimant had neglected Nicola Adams during her childhood, caused her to steal food, or abandoned her when illness led to the involvement of neighbours.
3. The articles did convey that the claimant had sent Nicola Adams drunken, insulting and hurtful text messages. Those words constituted statements of fact and were defamatory at common law.
4. The articles also conveyed that, in Nicola Adams’s view, the messages perpetuated, in a different form, the abuse she had suffered from her father and damaged the mother-daughter relationship. That passage was an expression of opinion. Its basis was indicated by the article’s account of the earlier abuse, the messages and their effect on the relationship.
5. The court applied the principles summarised in Koutsogiannis v The Random House Group Ltd [2020] 4 WLR 25 and the fact-opinion principles discussed in Triplark Limited v Northwood Hall (Freehold) Limited.
6. The natural and ordinary meaning was the meaning stated at paragraph 45. It was defamatory, comprising statements of fact except for the identified passage expressing opinion.