Hemming v Poulton & Ors [2025] EWCA Civ 1494 (20 November 2025)

Hemming v Poulton & Ors [2025] EWCA Civ 1494 (20 November 2025)

The Video publication bore a Chase Level 3 meaning: 'there are reasonable grounds to investigate whether John Hemming abused Esther Baker when she was a child', which is a defamatory factual imputation. The Update, read in context, referred to Mr Hemming and conveyed defamatory meanings at Chase Level 3: he applied inappropriate and excessive pressure to authorities to silence Ms Poulton, harassed her, his motivations were improper, and there are reasonable grounds to investigate whether those motivations include covering up his own criminal activities. The statements were mainly factual, with some opinion elements. The Judge's costs order (costs in the case) was within discretion and not...

Citation
[2025] EWCA Civ 1494
Parties
Appellant/claimant: John Alexander Melvin Hemming; Respondent/defendant: Sonia Vanessa Poulton; Respondent/part 20 Defendant: Samuel Collingwood Smith; Respondent/part 20 Defendant: Darren Richard Laverty
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 November 2025
Procedural Posture
Appeal (media and Communications, Defamation) / Court of Appeal Judgment Following Preliminary Issues Trial
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; Judge's determinations set aside and substituted as specified; costs order upheld.
Legal Topics
Libel, Serious Harm Requirement, Natural and Ordinary Meaning, Innuendo Meaning, Reference, Chase Levels, Repetition Rule, Bane and Antidote Principle, Costs Orders, SLAPP Allegations
Defamation Media Law Data Protection Harassment Libel Serious Harm Requirement Natural and Ordinary Meaning Innuendo Meaning +6 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 6 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Alexander Melvin Hemming

Appellant/claimant

Sonia Vanessa Poulton

Respondent/defendant

Samuel Collingwood Smith

Respondent/part 20 Defendant

Darren Richard Laverty

Respondent/part 20 Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (media and Communications, Defamation) / Court of Appeal Judgment Following Preliminary Issues Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Video and Update publications were defamatory of Mr Hemming at common law
  2. 2 Whether the statements bore natural and ordinary or innuendo meanings
  3. 3 Whether the statements referred to Mr Hemming

Ratio Decidendi

The Video publication bore a Chase Level 3 meaning: 'there are reasonable grounds to investigate whether John Hemming abused Esther Baker when she was a child', which is a defamatory factual imputation. The Update, read in context, referred to Mr Hemming and conveyed defamatory meanings at Chase Level 3: he applied inappropriate and excessive pressure to authorities to silence Ms Poulton, harassed her, his motivations were improper, and there are reasonable grounds to investigate whether those motivations include covering up his own criminal activities. The statements were mainly factual, with some opinion elements. The Judge's costs order (costs in the case) was within discretion and not...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; Judge's determinations set aside and substituted as specified; costs order upheld.

Orders

  • Natural and ordinary meaning of the Video determined as Chase Level 3: 'reasonable grounds to investigate whether John Hemming abused Esther Baker when she was a child'
  • Update found to refer to Mr Hemming and bear Chase Level 3 defamatory meanings as specified