Jeffrey John Hinds v British Boxing Board of Control Limited

In determining the natural and ordinary meaning of words complained of in defamation, the court must read the publication as a whole and use only context that could reasonably be known to all publishees. The hypothetical reasonable reader is neither naïve nor avid for scandal. Where a disciplinary notice records that a person was given words of advice, without recording a finding, admission or punishment, the reader should not infer wrongdoing merely because advice was given. A meaning that does not attribute conduct contrary to common shared values, or create a substantially adverse tendency in treatment by others, is not defamatory at common law.

A professional boxing referee sued the governing body for libel over a notice published on its website stating that he had been given words of advice for the future under Regulation 25. The trial concerned preliminary issues as to the statement’s meaning, whether that meaning was defamatory at common law, and whether the statement was fact or opinion.

The parties agreed that the statement was one of fact. They differed over whether it conveyed guilt or misconduct, or merely recorded disciplinary proceedings in which advice was given without any finding, admission or punishment.

1. Meaning. The statement was factual. Applying the principles in Koutsogiannis v Random House Group Ltd [2020] 4 WLR 25, as approved in Corbyn v Millett [2021] EWCA Civ 567, the court considered the publication as a whole from the viewpoint of the ordinary reasonable reader.
2. Permissible context. The other disciplinary notices appearing on the same website at the relevant time were admissible context because they could reasonably be read by the same publishees. The full text of Regulation 25, later website material, newspaper articles, online comments and specialist publications were excluded because they would not have been known to or read by all publishees. This followed the approach to extrinsic context in Riley v Murray [2020] EWHC 977 (QB).
3. Single meaning. The reasonable reader would understand that the claimant had been subject to proceedings concerning alleged misconduct before the defendant’s Southern Area Council. The reader would not infer that he had been found guilty, had admitted misconduct or had done wrong. The website notices established a distinction between persons who were fined or otherwise punished and persons merely given words of advice. To infer guilt from advice alone would be an interpretation avid for scandal.
4. Defamatory tendency. The meaning was that the claimant had been considered under Regulation 25 but was not found guilty, did not admit misconduct, was not found in breach and was given advice for the future. That meaning did not lower him in the estimation of right-thinking people generally and was not defamatory at common law.
5. Disposal. The statement was one of fact and was not defamatory. The court would determine the consequential order after hearing from the parties.