Brown v Bower & Anor [2017] EWHC 2637 (QB) (31 October 2017)

Brown v Bower & Anor [2017] EWHC 2637 (QB) (31 October 2017)

The meaning found is that, at the date the News of the World made the allegation, there were grounds to suspect the claimant had paid young male prostitutes to subject him to consensual rough sex. The book does not adopt or endorse the allegation as its own, but takes responsibility for its further dissemination. The repetition rule applies, but context prevents a finding of guilt. The question of whether this meaning is defamatory at common law is adjourned due to the parties’ agreement and the complexity of contemporary social values.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 2637 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Nicholas Brown; First Defendant: Tom Bower; Second Defendant: Faber & Faber Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Libel Action / Trial of Preliminary Issues (meaning and Whether Defamatory at Common Law)
Outcome
Single meaning determined; question of whether meaning is defamatory at common law adjourned.
Legal Topics
Libel, Meaning Determination, Repetition Rule, Defamatory Character, Chase Levels
Defamation Media Law Libel Meaning Determination Repetition Rule Defamatory Character Chase Levels

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 3 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nicholas Brown

Claimant

Tom Bower

First Defendant

Faber & Faber Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Action / Trial of Preliminary Issues (meaning and Whether Defamatory at Common Law)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the natural and ordinary meaning of the words complained of?
  2. 2 Does the repetition rule apply to the determination of meaning?
  3. 3 Is the meaning found defamatory at common law?

Ratio Decidendi

The meaning found is that, at the date the News of the World made the allegation, there were grounds to suspect the claimant had paid young male prostitutes to subject him to consensual rough sex. The book does not adopt or endorse the allegation as its own, but takes responsibility for its further dissemination. The repetition rule applies, but context prevents a finding of guilt. The question of whether this meaning is defamatory at common law is adjourned due to the parties’ agreement and the complexity of contemporary social values.

Court Disposition

Single meaning determined; question of whether meaning is defamatory at common law adjourned.

Orders

  • The meaning of the words complained of is: at the date the News of the World made the allegation, there were grounds to suspect the claimant had paid young male prostitutes to subject him to consensual rough sex.
  • No ruling made on whether the meaning is defamatory at common law; issue adjourned for later determination.