Benjamin Thomas Johnson v Stephen Helm

Whether words are statements of fact or opinion is determined by the words complained of, read in their full publication context and from the perspective of the ordinary reasonable reader. A statement capable of objective proof is not necessarily factual. A review may combine factual assertions with evaluative comment. The court must assess each statement in its actual context, rather than applying a rigid fact–opinion dichotomy or deciding the issue by reference only to a pleaded meaning. Where words form one sentence or allegation, they should be considered together if that is necessary to identify their substance and defamatory imputation.

The claimant, a sole-trader joiner, brought a libel claim concerning a negative online review published by the defendant after disputed kitchen-fitting works. The parties agreed the natural and ordinary meaning and that the words were defamatory at common law. The preliminary issue was whether selected words were statements of fact or opinion for the purposes of the defendant’s reliance on honest opinion under section 3 of the Defamation Act 2013.

The court determined the classification of the pleaded words by reference to the review as a whole and to the understanding of the ordinary reasonable reader.

1. Preliminary issue determined. The court ruled on the classification of the selected words and directed the defendant’s counsel to draft an order reflecting those rulings.
2. The distinction between fact and opinion is context-sensitive. Words must be assessed as published, by asking how they would strike the ordinary reasonable reader. A statement which appears capable of objective verification may nevertheless be comment. The court rejected a rigid dichotomy between verifiable fact and opinion.
3. “Damaged everything”, read within a review describing allegedly poor work, was opinion. It was understood as shorthand summarising or commenting on the factual matters set out elsewhere in the review.
4. The statements that the claimant pushed pipes into the waste pipe, sealed them with silicone, and thereby caused waste to back up into the machines were factual assertions. They formed one connected allegation of botched pipework, and the latter words stated an alleged consequence rather than a separate defamatory imputation.
5. The statement that the claimant cut out the back of units, together with the surrounding words concerning the skirting board and the units’ legs, comprised statements of fact. Any potentially evaluative phrase could not convert the whole passage into opinion.
6. “Admitted liability”, in the sentence stating that the claimant refunded the deposit and admitted liability by doing so, was opinion. The factual basis was identified in the same sentence, and the words conveyed the author’s view that the refund amounted to an admission of liability.