John Alexander Melvin Hemming v Sonia Vanessa Poulton & Ors

Natural and ordinary defamatory meaning is determined from the impression made on the ordinary reasonable reader by the publication as a whole. The repetition rule and the bane-and-antidote principle are aids to that enquiry, not mechanical rules which require a repeated allegation to be treated as an imputation of guilt. A Chase level 1 meaning requires the publication, viewed in context, to adopt or endorse the allegation.

Reference is objective. A statement which does not name the claimant may nevertheless refer to them if a reasonable reader identifies them from connected material published in the same context. An allegation that there are reasonable grounds to investigate criminal conduct is an imputation of fact, though surrounding evaluative descriptions may be opinion.

The claimant, a businessman and former MP, sued the first respondent journalist for libel arising from a 2019 video interview and a 2021 update on her fundraising webpage. The claims also included other causes of action, but the appeal concerned only preliminary determinations in the libel claim.

The High Court had determined the meanings of both publications, whether they were defamatory at common law, and whether they were fact or opinion: [2024] EWHC 1860 (KB). A Deputy Master had struck out the respondent's pleaded denial that the Update referred to the claimant, but had not entered summary judgment on reference or ordered that issue to be tried. The central issues were the proper meanings of the Video and Update, whether the Update referred to the claimant, and the costs order.

1. Appeal allowed in part. The court upheld the trial judge's substantive assessment that the Video conveyed a Chase level 3 imputation, but set aside the defective formulation of the order. The Video's natural and ordinary meaning was that there were reasonable grounds to investigate whether the claimant abused Esther Baker when she was a child. That was a defamatory imputation of fact.

2. The claimant's repetition-rule argument was rejected. The publication's meaning had to be derived from its whole context and its effect on the ordinary reasonable viewer. The rule concerning repetition, and the bane-and-antidote principle explained in Mark v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 882, could not be applied mechanistically. The trial judge had been entitled to rely on the qualifications, tone and wider content of the Video, and to find no adoption of the allegation at Chase level 1 or 2.

3. The court held that the Deputy Master's strike-out did not determine reference in the claimant's favour. Reference depended objectively on whether the reasonable reader would identify the claimant; the publisher's subjective intention was irrelevant, and the claimant retained the burden of proof. In the exceptional circumstances, the court itself determined the omitted issue of reference and the related preliminary issues.

4. The Update referred to the claimant because a reasonable reader would read it with the connected statements on the same fundraising page, which contained a sufficient nexus to identify him. It meant that he had tried to stop reporting on Establishment child abuse by participating in excessive pressure to have the respondent charged and by harassing or attacking her; that his motivations were improper; and that there were reasonable grounds to investigate whether those motivations included a wish to conceal his own criminal activity. The descriptions of the pressure as excessive and the motivations as improper were opinion. The remaining meanings, including the Chase level 3 imputation, were factual.

5. The appeal against the costs order was dismissed. Costs remained discretionary. The judge's decision that the preliminary-trial costs should be costs in the case was coherent and within the range of reasonable decisions.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Allowed the appeal in part, substituted determinations of reference, meaning and fact/opinion for both publications, and dismissed the challenge to costs: [2025] EWCA Civ 1494.
• High Court, King's Bench Division, Media and Communications List: At a preliminary trial, determined meaning, common-law defamation and fact/opinion in relation to the Video and Update: [2024] EWHC 1860 (KB).
• Deputy Master: Ordered a preliminary trial of meaning and struck out the respondent's pleaded denial that the Update referred to the claimant, but did not enter summary judgment on reference.