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 in his capacity as a teacher of a teenage girl/pupil he behaved inappropriately by making sexual advances, meriting an indefinite prohibition from teaching, and that his successful appeal was disappointing because the original ban was justified and he posed a risk to the safety and welfare of children. 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...

Citation
[2017] EWHC 2873 (QB)
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 (defamation) / Interlocutory Applications: Meaning Ruling, Summary Judgment, Strike Out
Outcome
Ruling on meaning: the words are capable of bearing the pleaded defamatory meaning. No summary judgment or strike out granted at this stage.
Legal Topics
Libel, Serious Harm, Abuse of Process, Reporting Privilege, Honest Opinion, Jurisdiction, Meaning of Words, Summary Judgment
Defamation Media Law Civil Procedure Libel Serious Harm Abuse of Process Reporting Privilege Honest Opinion +3 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 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 (defamation) / Interlocutory Applications: Meaning Ruling, Summary Judgment, Strike Out

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 should be struck out or summarily dismissed for lack of real prospect of success or as an abuse of process
  3. 3 Whether the serious harm requirement under s.1 Defamation Act 2013 is met

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 in his capacity as a teacher of a teenage girl/pupil he behaved inappropriately by making sexual advances, meriting an indefinite prohibition from teaching, and that his successful appeal was disappointing because the original ban was justified and he posed a risk to the safety and welfare of children. 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...

Court Disposition

Ruling on meaning: the words are capable of bearing the pleaded defamatory meaning. No summary judgment or strike out granted at this stage.

Orders

  • The words complained of in the online and print versions of the Second Article are capable of bearing the defamatory meanings as set out in the judgment.
  • Applications to strike out or summarily dismiss the claim on the basis of meaning or seriousness are refused at this stage.