Haviland v The Andrew Lownie Literary Agency Ltd & Anor

Haviland v The Andrew Lownie Literary Agency Ltd & Anor

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

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
Civil Defamation / Preliminary Issue Determination on Meaning and Defamatory Nature of Publications
Outcome
Preliminary issues determined; certain meanings found defamatory at common law, others not.
Legal Topics
Libel, Meaning of Defamatory Statements, Threshold of Seriousness, Natural and Ordinary Meaning, Reputation
Defamation Media Law Libel Meaning of Defamatory Statements Threshold of Seriousness Natural and Ordinary Meaning 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 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

Civil Defamation / Preliminary Issue Determination on Meaning and Defamatory Nature of Publications

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 natural and ordinary meanings of the First to Fourth and Seventh Emails were that the Claimant knowingly made false and misleading statements on his Reedsy profile, amounting to deception or an attempt to deceive, which is 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; certain meanings found defamatory at common law, others not.

Orders

  • The natural and ordinary meanings of the Second to Seventh Emails are as set out in the judgment.
  • The First to Fourth and Seventh Emails are defamatory of the Claimant at common law; the Fifth and Sixth are not.