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 found that the First, Second, Third, Fourth, and Seventh Emails conveyed meanings that the Claimant had deliberately included false and misleading statements on his Reedsy profile, which connoted deception and crossed the threshold to be defamatory at common law. The Fifth and Sixth Emails were found to be trivial or semantic disputes and not defamatory.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 143 (QB)
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 / Preliminary Issues Judgment
Outcome
Preliminary issues determined; First, Second, Third, Fourth, and Seventh Emails found to bear defamatory meanings at common law; Fifth and Sixth Emails not defamatory.
Legal Topics
Libel, Natural and Ordinary Meaning, Defamatory Threshold, False Statements, Reputation
Defamation Media Law Libel Natural and Ordinary Meaning Defamatory Threshold False Statements Reputation

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 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 / Preliminary Issues Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the natural and ordinary meaning 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 found that the First, Second, Third, Fourth, and Seventh Emails conveyed meanings that the Claimant had deliberately included false and misleading statements on his Reedsy profile, which connoted deception and crossed the threshold to be 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; First, Second, Third, Fourth, and Seventh Emails found to bear defamatory meanings at common law; Fifth and Sixth Emails not defamatory.

Orders

  • Copies of the parties' written submissions to be made available with the judgment.
  • Issue of serious harm under s.1 Defamation Act 2013 reserved for later determination.