Alsaifi v Trinity Mirror Plc & Board of Directors & Anor [2017] EWHC 2873 (QB) (17 November 2017)

Alsaifi v Trinity Mirror Plc & Board of Directors & Anor [2017] EWHC 2873 (QB) (17 November 2017)

The words of the online version of the Second Article are at least capable of bearing the defamatory meaning pleaded by the Claimant, namely that he behaved inappropriately towards a teenage pupil by making sexual advances, meriting an indefinite teaching ban, and that his appeal success was disappointing as he poses a risk to children's safety and welfare. The print version is capable of a similar but less grave meaning due to omission of certain passages. The Second Defendant's statement is also capable of referring to and being defamatory of the Claimant. The applications to strike out or summarily dismiss the claim on the basis of meaning fail at this stage.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 2873
Parties
Claimant: Tariq Alsaifi; First Defendant: Trinity Mirror plc & Board of Directors; Second Defendant: Secretary of State for Education
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 November 2017
Procedural Posture
Libel Action / Ruling on Meaning and Summary Judgment/strike Out Applications
Outcome
Applications to strike out or summarily dismiss the claim on the basis of meaning refused; ruling on meaning made.
Legal Topics
Libel, Serious Harm Requirement, Meaning of Defamatory Statements, Abuse of Process, Reporting Privilege, Honest Opinion Defence
Defamation Media Law Libel Serious Harm Requirement Meaning of Defamatory Statements Abuse of Process Reporting Privilege Honest Opinion Defence

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tariq Alsaifi

Claimant

Trinity Mirror plc & Board of Directors

First Defendant

Secretary of State for Education

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Action / Ruling on Meaning and Summary Judgment/strike Out Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the words complained of in the Second Article are capable of bearing a defamatory meaning of the Claimant
  2. 2 Whether the claim meets the serious harm requirement under s.1 Defamation Act 2013
  3. 3 Whether the claim is an abuse of process under Jameel principles

Ratio Decidendi

The words of the online version of the Second Article are at least capable of bearing the defamatory meaning pleaded by the Claimant, namely that he behaved inappropriately towards a teenage pupil by making sexual advances, meriting an indefinite teaching ban, and that his appeal success was disappointing as he poses a risk to children's safety and welfare. The print version is capable of a similar but less grave meaning due to omission of certain passages. The Second Defendant's statement is also capable of referring to and being defamatory of the Claimant. The applications to strike out or summarily dismiss the claim on the basis of meaning fail at this stage.

Court Disposition

Applications to strike out or summarily dismiss the claim on the basis of meaning refused; ruling on meaning made.

Orders

  • The words complained of in the online version of the Second Article are capable of bearing the pleaded defamatory meaning (with modifications as set out in the judgment).
  • The print version is capable of a similar but less grave defamatory meaning.