Eniola Aluko v Joseph Barton

In determining meaning in a defamation claim, the court must identify the single natural and ordinary meaning conveyed to the hypothetical reasonable reader, considering the words, emojis and surrounding context. Context may produce an innuendo meaning different from the ordinary meaning. Whether words convey fact or opinion depends on how they would strike the ordinary reasonable reader; there is no fixed rule for allegations of dishonesty. A statement is defamatory at common law where it attributes conduct contrary to shared social values and would tend to have a substantially adverse effect on how the claimant is treated or regarded.

The claimant brought a defamation claim concerning two posts published by the defendant on X. The First Post reproduced a Guardian article concerning calls for a fresh investigation into the Football Association’s handling of the claimant’s allegations of racism and bullying. The claimant also relied on a related Victim Card Post when alleging an innuendo meaning.

The Second Post referred to the claimant’s background, alleged family wealth and education, and described her as a race card player. The preliminary issues concerned the natural and ordinary meanings, the First Post’s innuendo meaning, whether the meanings were fact or opinion, and whether they were defamatory at common law.

1. First Post: ordinary meaning. The words and clown emojis meant that it was predictable and laughable that the Football Association faced calls for a fresh investigation into its handling of the claimant’s claims of racism and bullying. This was comment on the news reported in the Guardian article, not an allegation that the claimant’s claims were dishonest, unwarranted or part of a pattern of bad-faith complaints. It was opinion and was not defamatory (paras 29–33, 51, 55, 58–59).
2. First Post: innuendo. For readers who had also read the Victim Card Post, the First Post conveyed that the claimant had cynically sought to exploit her alleged victim status in making claims of racism and bullying, that the claim was unwarranted, and that her conduct was predictable and laughable. The meaning was opinion but defamatory because it imputed cynical conduct and an unwarranted claim, contrary to shared social values and tending substantially adversely to affect how the claimant was regarded (paras 34–40, 52, 56, 60–61).
3. Second Post. The post conveyed that the claimant was hypocritical in criticising the furlough scheme while benefiting from alleged family wealth, and that she had on at least one occasion cynically sought to exploit her race. The hypocrisy allegation was opinion because its factual basis was stated. The race-card allegation was fact because it appeared as a bare assertion without an indicated basis for opinion. Both meanings were defamatory (paras 41–49, 53, 57, 62–63).
4. The court therefore determined the preliminary issues by adopting the meanings and classifications set out above. No final disposition of the claimant’s other claim or the related criminal proceedings was made.