Alsaifi v Trinity Mirror Plc & Ors [2017] EWHC 1444 (QB) (27 June 2017)

Alsaifi v Trinity Mirror Plc & Ors [2017] EWHC 1444 (QB) (27 June 2017)

The words complained of are not capable of bearing the extreme defamatory meanings alleged by the claimant, such as imputations of paedophilia or sexual predation. The pleadings as to innuendo are misconceived, as the extraneous facts relied on do not support true innuendo meanings. The majority of the First Article constitutes a fair and accurate report of a public notice and is protected by statutory reporting privilege under the Defamation Act 1996. The claim against Trinity Mirror has no real prospect of success and is dismissed. The application for a ruling on meaning is determined in accordance with these findings.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 1444
Parties
Claimant: Tariq Alsaifi; First Defendant: Trinity Mirror Plc and Board of Directors; Second Defendant: Newcastle College Group and Board of Governors
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Libel Action (defamation) / Interim Applications: Summary Judgment and Meaning Determination
Outcome
Claim against Trinity Mirror dismissed; ruling on meaning made; no adjudication on Newcastle College's liability at this stage.
Legal Topics
Libel, Reporting Privilege, Meaning of Defamatory Statements, Summary Judgment, Statutory Defences, Innuendo, Pleading Requirements
Defamation Media Law Civil Procedure Libel Reporting Privilege Meaning of Defamatory Statements Summary Judgment Statutory Defences +2 more

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tariq Alsaifi

Claimant

Trinity Mirror Plc and Board of Directors

First Defendant

Newcastle College Group and Board of Governors

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Action (defamation) / Interim Applications: Summary Judgment and Meaning Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the words complained of are capable of bearing the defamatory meanings alleged by the claimant
  2. 2 Whether the claimant's claims have any real prospect of success in light of statutory reporting privilege under the Defamation Act 1996
  3. 3 Whether the defence of honest opinion or Jameel abuse applies

Ratio Decidendi

The words complained of are not capable of bearing the extreme defamatory meanings alleged by the claimant, such as imputations of paedophilia or sexual predation. The pleadings as to innuendo are misconceived, as the extraneous facts relied on do not support true innuendo meanings. The majority of the First Article constitutes a fair and accurate report of a public notice and is protected by statutory reporting privilege under the Defamation Act 1996. The claim against Trinity Mirror has no real prospect of success and is dismissed. The application for a ruling on meaning is determined in accordance with these findings.

Court Disposition

Claim against Trinity Mirror dismissed; ruling on meaning made; no adjudication on Newcastle College's liability at this stage.

Orders

  • Summary judgment granted in favour of Trinity Mirror Plc and Board of Directors; claim dismissed as against them.
  • Ruling on meaning: words not capable of bearing the extreme defamatory meanings alleged by claimant; no true innuendo meanings established.