Haviland v The Andrew Lownie Literary Agency Ltd & Anor [2021] EWHC 143 (QB) (29 January 2021)

Haviland v The Andrew Lownie Literary Agency Ltd & Anor [2021] EWHC 143 (QB) (29 January 2021)

The court held that the natural and ordinary meanings of the First to Fourth and Seventh Emails were that the Claimant had knowingly made false and misleading statements on his Reedsy profile, amounting to deception or an attempt to deceive, and these meanings were defamatory at common law. The Fifth and Sixth Emails were found to be trivial or semantic disputes and not defamatory.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 143
Parties
Claimant: David Haviland; First Defendant: The Andrew Lownie Literary Agency Limited; Second Defendant: Andrew James Hamilton Lownie
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 January 2021
Procedural Posture
Libel Claim (defamation) / Preliminary Issues Trial on Meaning and Defamatory Tendency
Outcome
Preliminary issues determined: Meanings of First to Fourth and Seventh Emails are defamatory at common law; Fifth and Sixth Emails are not defamatory.
Legal Topics
Libel, Natural and Ordinary Meaning, Defamatory Tendency, Threshold of Seriousness, Reputation, Publication by Email
Defamation Media Law Libel Natural and Ordinary Meaning Defamatory Tendency Threshold of Seriousness Reputation Publication by Email

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Haviland

Claimant

The Andrew Lownie Literary Agency Limited

First Defendant

Andrew James Hamilton Lownie

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Claim (defamation) / Preliminary Issues Trial on Meaning and Defamatory Tendency

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What are the natural and ordinary meanings of the Second to Seventh Emails?
  2. 2 Are the meanings of the First to Seventh Emails defamatory of the Claimant at common law?

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the natural and ordinary meanings of the First to Fourth and Seventh Emails were that the Claimant had knowingly made false and misleading statements on his Reedsy profile, amounting to deception or an attempt to deceive, and these meanings were defamatory at common law. The Fifth and Sixth Emails were found to be trivial or semantic disputes and not defamatory.

Court Disposition

Preliminary issues determined: Meanings of First to Fourth and Seventh Emails are defamatory at common law; Fifth and Sixth Emails are not defamatory.

Orders

  • Parties to proceed to next stage regarding s.1 Defamation Act 2013 and any further issues.