Unity Plus Healthcare Limited v Peter Gareth Clay & Ors

In determining the meaning of allegedly defamatory words, the court must identify the single natural and ordinary meaning that the hypothetical reasonable reader would understand from the publication as a whole. Context forming part of the publication is admissible only where the ordinary reader could reasonably be expected to read or know it. Unlabelled and extensive attachments will not ordinarily form part of the publication merely because they accompanied it. The Chase levels are useful shorthand, but they do not impose rigid categories. A publication may convey strong grounds to suspect wrongdoing while stopping short of asserting that the wrongdoing is proved. Whether words are statements of fact or opinion depends on how they would strike the reasonable reader in context. A factual allegation may remain one of fact even where the publisher expresses belief or refers to supporting material; a value judgment about conduct may be opinion.

The claimant brought defamation proceedings arising from an email sent by the first defendant to HMRC and later forwarded to a customer. The email alleged, among other matters, furlough fraud, money laundering, misuse of Bounce Back and Funding Circle loans, and the use of limited-company arrangements affecting staff.

Following case management directions, the High Court tried preliminary issues concerning the natural and ordinary meaning of the words, whether they were statements of fact or opinion, and whether they were defamatory at common law. The principal questions were whether the email's attachments formed part of the publication, what level of meaning it conveyed, and which allegations were fact or opinion.

1. Meaning and context. The court determined the single natural and ordinary meaning by considering the email as a whole through the eyes of the hypothetical reasonable reader. The 27 attachments did not form part of the publication. Although their existence was apparent, they were unlabelled, largely unexplained and not cross-referenced. Only an unusually diligent reader could have been expected to open and read them all, and that was not the relevant reader ([15], [23]-[29]).
2. Level of meaning. The email conveyed strong grounds to suspect that the claimant was involved in the alleged wrongdoing. It did not simply state that the allegations were true, because it referred to concerns, HMRC's own checks and possible further information. However, references to sources, evidence and proof took it beyond a mere invitation to investigate ([30]-[33], [40], [47]-[48]).
3. Fact and opinion. The allegations concerning the claimant's operation, VAT evasion, furlough fraud, money laundering, loans and staff arrangements were statements of fact. The allegation that the claimant took advantage of staff by forcing them into limited-company arrangements was a value judgment and therefore opinion. The use of phrases such as belief did not convert the factual allegations into opinion, because the belief related to the truth of the alleged facts ([35]-[41], [51]-[52]).
4. Disposition. The meaning found was defamatory of the claimant at common law. The preliminary issues were accordingly determined in those terms.