Guerrilla Marketing Ltd v NGM Advertising Ltd & Ors [2026] EWHC 1085 (KB) (08 May 2026)

Guerrilla Marketing Ltd v NGM Advertising Ltd & Ors [2026] EWHC 1085 (KB) (08 May 2026)

With the exception of the first email, all publications conveyed statements of fact that the Claimant had engaged in fraudulent mis-selling of advertising space, including dishonesty and deception, and these meanings are defamatory at common law. The first email conveyed only reasonable grounds to investigate and was not defamatory.

Citation
[2026] EWHC 1085 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: Guerrilla Marketing Ltd; First Defendant: NGM Advertising Limited; Second Defendant: Guy Thurlow; Third Defendant: Gregory Allen
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 May 2026
Procedural Posture
Civil (defamation/media) / Preliminary Issues Trial (meaning, Fact/opinion, Defamatory at Common Law)
Outcome
Preliminary issues determined: meanings found as set out; all but the first email are defamatory at common law; all meanings are statements of fact, not opinion.
Legal Topics
Libel, Malicious Falsehood, Unlawful Interference With Economic Interests, Procuring Breach of Contract, Meaning of Publications, Fact Vs Opinion, Defamatory at Common Law, Chase Levels
Defamation Media Law Tort Libel Malicious Falsehood Unlawful Interference With Economic Interests Procuring Breach of Contract Meaning of Publications +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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Guerrilla Marketing Ltd

Claimant

NGM Advertising Limited

First Defendant

Guy Thurlow

Second Defendant

Gregory Allen

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (defamation/media) / Preliminary Issues Trial (meaning, Fact/opinion, Defamatory at Common Law)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What are the natural and ordinary meanings of the publications complained of?
  2. 2 Are the publications statements of fact or expressions of opinion?
  3. 3 Are the publications defamatory at common law?

Ratio Decidendi

With the exception of the first email, all publications conveyed statements of fact that the Claimant had engaged in fraudulent mis-selling of advertising space, including dishonesty and deception, and these meanings are defamatory at common law. The first email conveyed only reasonable grounds to investigate and was not defamatory.

Court Disposition

Preliminary issues determined: meanings found as set out; all but the first email are defamatory at common law; all meanings are statements of fact, not opinion.