Guerrilla Marketing Ltd v NGM Advertising Limited

Guerrilla Marketing Ltd v NGM Advertising Limited

With the exception of the first email, all publications conveyed statements of fact imputing fraudulent mis-selling and dishonesty by the Claimant, and were defamatory at common law. The first email only raised grounds to investigate and was not defamatory. The meanings were determined by the reasonable business reader in context, applying the Chase levels and relevant legal principles.

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 / Preliminary Issues Trial on Meaning, Fact/opinion, and Defamatory Nature of Publications
Outcome
Determination of preliminary issues: Meanings of the publications, fact/opinion status, and defamatory nature established as set out in the judgment.
Legal Topics
Libel, Malicious Falsehood, Unlawful Interference With Economic Interests, Procuring Breach of Contract, Meaning of Publications, Fact Vs Opinion, Defamatory at Common Law
Defamation Media Law Tort Libel Malicious Falsehood Unlawful Interference With Economic Interests Procuring Breach of Contract Meaning of Publications +2 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 / Preliminary Issues Trial on Meaning, Fact/opinion, and Defamatory Nature of Publications

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 imputing fraudulent mis-selling and dishonesty by the Claimant, and were defamatory at common law. The first email only raised grounds to investigate and was not defamatory. The meanings were determined by the reasonable business reader in context, applying the Chase levels and relevant legal principles.

Court Disposition

Determination of preliminary issues: Meanings of the publications, fact/opinion status, and defamatory nature established as set out in the judgment.