Frank Warren v Christopher Livingstone Eubank Jnr

In determining the meaning of allegedly defamatory words, the court must identify a single, constant and unfluctuating meaning, without over-analysis. The exercise focuses on what was actually said, read in its context. Clear words should not be glossed or expanded by synonyms. The court need not make the seriousness of an allegation explicit in the meaning, since that is ordinarily for the trial judge. Where words allege repeated dishonesty, the selected adverb should accurately reflect the frequency conveyed and should not understate it.

The claimant, a boxing promoter, brought libel and slander proceedings concerning words spoken by the defendant, a professional boxer, at a televised press conference. The defendant said that the claimant had been lying and cheating his way through boxing for the previous couple of decades. The court tried a preliminary issue of meaning ordered by Master Gidden on 27 February 2025. The parties agreed that the words were defamatory at common law and conveyed guilt at Chase level 1. The central issue was the single meaning to be attributed to the words complained of.

1. The court determined the meaning issue by identifying the single, constant and unfluctuating meaning conveyed by the words, while avoiding over-analysis. The relevant audience heard or read the words in the context of the press conference and its republications.
2. The court focused on the words actually used: the claimant had been lying and cheating his way through boxing for the last couple of decades. The reference to the claimant being behind the defendant was literal, because the claimant was sitting behind him.
3. The words concerned the claimant’s work as a boxing promoter, rather than his personal life. The phrase “through boxing” was broad and was not confined to dealings with boxers.
4. “Lying” required no gloss because its meaning was clear. “Cheating” was sufficiently straightforward and ordinarily conveyed defrauding or deceiving; it required no further definition. The meaning did not need expressly to state the seriousness of the allegation, which was for the trial judge.
5. “Repeatedly” understated the frequency because it could mean only twice. The court therefore selected “frequently”. The single meaning was: over the past 20 years the claimant had frequently been guilty of lying and cheating in his business dealings as a boxing promoter.

This was a first-instance trial of a preliminary issue. Master Gidden ordered determination of the issue on 27 February 2025.