Gillick v Brook Advisory Centres & Anor [2001] EWCA Civ 1263 (23 July 2001)

The passage in the leaflet is capable of bearing the defamatory meaning alleged by Mrs Gillick, as an ordinary reader, particularly one without special background knowledge, could reasonably interpret it as implying she was to blame for the increase in teenage pregnancies in the 1980s.

Citation: [2001] EWCA Civ 1263
Parties: Claimant/appellant: Mrs Victoria Mandeville Gillick; First Defendant/respondent: Brook Advisory Centres; Second Defendant/respondent: Dr Margaret Jones
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 23 July 2001
Procedural Posture: Appeal (civil) / Appeal From Queen's Bench Division (interlocutory Ruling on Meaning in Libel Action)
Outcome: Appeal allowed
Legal Topics: Libel, Defamatory Meaning, Interlocutory Ruling, Interpretation of Publications

Defamation Tort Media Law Libel Defamatory Meaning Interlocutory Ruling Interpretation of Publications

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1

Parties

Mrs Victoria Mandeville Gillick

Claimant/appellant

Brook Advisory Centres

First Defendant/respondent

Dr Margaret Jones

Second Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Appeal From Queen's Bench Division (interlocutory Ruling on Meaning in Libel Action)

Legal Issues

1 Whether the words in the leaflet are capable of bearing the defamatory meaning alleged by Mrs Gillick

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

Appeal allowed with costs to be agreed subject to standard entitlement for a litigant in person.
Costs paid by appellant in court below to be repaid within 14 days together with the costs of the appeal.