Ann-Marie Janice Smith & Anor. v Pastor John Charles Surridge & Ors.

In determining the natural and ordinary meaning of allegedly defamatory words, the court must identify the single meaning that the hypothetical reasonable reader would understand from the publication read as a whole. The court may consider material forming part of the publication and directly available context known to all publishees, but not material known only to some readers unless an innuendo is pleaded.

The repetition rule prevents a publisher from reducing the defamatory meaning merely by presenting an allegation as a report, although the meaning must still be assessed in context. Chase levels are a useful shorthand, not a mandatory classification. A broad reference to safeguarding issues may convey that something actually happened which caused harm to a child or placed a child at risk, without necessarily alleging abuse or maltreatment.

The claimants, secondary-school teachers, sued the defendants in libel, misuse of private information and negligent misstatement. They complained of an email sent by the School to an employment agency in response to reference requests, stating that there had been safeguarding issues during their employment.

Lavender J directed a trial of preliminary issues concerning the natural and ordinary meaning of the statement, whether it was defamatory at common law, and whether it was fact or opinion. The central questions were the proper context for interpreting the email, the effect of the repetition rule, and whether the words conveyed proven misconduct or merely allegations or concerns.

1. Meaning and context. The court’s task was to determine the single natural and ordinary meaning which a hypothetical reasonable reader would attribute to the words. The Reference was considered together with the email correspondence in the Annex because Mr Brown was the only recipient and would have known or read that material. Even without that context, however, the meaning was materially the same (paras [10], [23]-[29]).
2. Safeguarding issues. “Safeguarding” is a broad term whose meaning depends on context. In a school reference it concerns protection of children from harm or the risk of harm. The reasonable reader would recognise that safeguarding issues could range from very serious matters to relatively low-level matters, and would not automatically infer abuse or maltreatment. The word “some” did not necessarily mean more than one issue per claimant (paras [31]-[35]).
3. Repetition and Chase levels. The Reference did not convey merely that allegations or concerns had been raised. That meaning would in any event contravene the repetition rule. The words conveyed a Chase level 1 meaning: something had actually happened which gave rise to a safeguarding issue. Chase levels were treated as helpful shorthand rather than a straitjacket (paras [13], [15]-[16], [36]-[38]).
4. Meaning and result. In relation to each claimant, the meaning was that, while working at the School, she did something giving rise to a safeguarding issue, namely something which either caused harm to a child or placed a child at risk of harm. That meaning was defamatory at common law. It was common ground that the words were a statement of fact (paras [37]-[39]).

First-instance determination of preliminary issues directed by Lavender J on 13 September 2022. The judgment determined meaning, defamatory tendency and fact or opinion; the wider claims remained to be dealt with.