Shakil-Ur-Rahman v Ary Network Ltd & Anor [2015] EWHC 2917 (QB) (27 November 2015)

Shakil-Ur-Rahman v Ary Network Ltd & Anor [2015] EWHC 2917 (QB) (27 November 2015)

The words complained of in the broadcasts, when viewed in context and as understood by the ordinary reasonable viewer, bore the meanings contended for by the claimant in the first two broadcasts (guilt of treason and being an enemy of Pakistan), and in the third broadcast (disloyalty to Pakistan, strong links with Indian intelligence, spreading pro-Indian propaganda, and seeking US funding to promote US interests). These were statements of fact, not opinion, and at Chase level 1. The court rejected the defendants' argument that the words were merely comment or opinion, finding the broadcasts presented the allegations as proven facts.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 2917 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Mir Shakil-ur-Rahman; First Defendant: ARY Network Limited; Second Defendant: Fayaz Ghafoor
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 November 2015
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Preliminary Issues Trial on Meaning and Fact/opinion
Outcome
Preliminary issues determined in favour of the claimant on meaning and fact/opinion for the first three broadcasts.
Legal Topics
Defamation—meaning of Words, Fact Vs Opinion, Innuendo Meaning, Chase Levels, Lucas Box Meanings, Television Broadcast Liability
Media Law Defamation Defamation—meaning of Words Fact Vs Opinion Innuendo Meaning Chase Levels Lucas Box Meanings Television Broadcast Liability

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mir Shakil-ur-Rahman

Claimant

ARY Network Limited

First Defendant

Fayaz Ghafoor

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Preliminary Issues Trial on Meaning and Fact/opinion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the natural and ordinary meaning of the words complained of in the broadcasts?
  2. 2 Are the words statements of fact or opinion?
  3. 3 Do the words bear any innuendo meanings pleaded by the claimant?

Ratio Decidendi

The words complained of in the broadcasts, when viewed in context and as understood by the ordinary reasonable viewer, bore the meanings contended for by the claimant in the first two broadcasts (guilt of treason and being an enemy of Pakistan), and in the third broadcast (disloyalty to Pakistan, strong links with Indian intelligence, spreading pro-Indian propaganda, and seeking US funding to promote US interests). These were statements of fact, not opinion, and at Chase level 1. The court rejected the defendants' argument that the words were merely comment or opinion, finding the broadcasts presented the allegations as proven facts.

Court Disposition

Preliminary issues determined in favour of the claimant on meaning and fact/opinion for the first three broadcasts.

Orders

  • The words complained of in the first and second broadcasts bear the meaning that the claimant is guilty of treason/enemy of Pakistan and are statements of fact at Chase level 1.
  • The words complained of in the third broadcast bear the meaning that the claimant is disloyal to Pakistan, has strong links with Indian intelligence, spreads pro-Indian propaganda, and sought US funding to promote US interests; these are statements of fact at Chase level 1, except 'disloyal to his country' which is...