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 court held that the words complained of by the claimant were not capable of bearing the extreme defamatory meanings alleged (such as paedophile, sexual predator, or criminal conduct), either in their natural and ordinary meaning or by way of true innuendo. The reporting in the First Article was, for the most part, a fair and accurate report of the NCTL proceedings and decision, and thus protected by statutory reporting privilege under the Defamation Act 1996. The remaining statements, including those attributed to Newcastle College, were not capable of bearing the highly defamatory meanings pleaded. The claim as pleaded had no real prospect of success and was liable to be struck out...

Citation
[2017] EWHC 1444 (QB)
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 / Interim Applications (summary Judgment and Meaning Determination)
Outcome
Summary judgment granted in favour of the defendants; claim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Libel, Reporting Privilege, Meaning of Defamatory Statements, Summary Judgment, Innuendo, Natural and Ordinary Meaning, Procedural Fairness
Defamation Media Law Civil Procedure Libel Reporting Privilege Meaning of Defamatory Statements Summary Judgment Innuendo +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 11 Party arguments 2
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 / Interim Applications (summary Judgment and Meaning Determination)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the words complained of are capable of bearing the meanings alleged by the claimant or other defamatory meanings
  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 reporting in the First Article was a fair and accurate report of official proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the words complained of by the claimant were not capable of bearing the extreme defamatory meanings alleged (such as paedophile, sexual predator, or criminal conduct), either in their natural and ordinary meaning or by way of true innuendo. The reporting in the First Article was, for the most part, a fair and accurate report of the NCTL proceedings and decision, and thus protected by statutory reporting privilege under the Defamation Act 1996. The remaining statements, including those attributed to Newcastle College, were not capable of bearing the highly defamatory meanings pleaded. The claim as pleaded had no real prospect of success and was liable to be struck out...

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted in favour of the defendants; claim dismissed.

Orders

  • The claim against Trinity Mirror Plc and Newcastle College Group is dismissed.
  • No further action on the Meaning Application as the words are not capable of bearing the pleaded defamatory meanings.