Sahota v Middlesex Broadcasting Corporation Ltd & Ors

Sahota v Middlesex Broadcasting Corporation Ltd & Ors

The words complained of, in their natural and ordinary meaning, conveyed that the Claimant deceived and misled people by his protest; is not a true supporter of Khalistan but a hireling whose allegiance can be bought; is not a true Sikh due to disrespecting the Sikh religion; by standing with Kashmiri terrorists, risked dividing the Sikh community and involving Sikhs in violence, hatred and terrorism; and that the Claimant and his family commercialised the sale of the sacred Guru Granth Sahib. Meanings (i), (ii), and (iv) are defamatory at common law; (iii) and (v) are not. Parts of meanings (ii), (iii), and (iv) are opinion, the rest are fact.

Parties
Claimant: Amrik Singh Sahota; First Defendant: Middlesex Broadcasting Corporation Limited; Second Defendant: Jaswant Singh Bharj (aka Jaswant Singh Thekedar); Third Defendant: Parminder Singh Bal
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Preliminary Issues Determination (meaning, Defamatory Nature, Fact/opinion)
Outcome
Preliminary issues determined: natural and ordinary meanings found; some meanings held defamatory at common law; fact/opinion distinction drawn.
Legal Topics
Meaning of Words in Defamation, Fact Vs Opinion, Defamatory at Common Law, Foreign Language Broadcast, Statements of Fact and Opinion
Defamation Media Law Meaning of Words in Defamation Fact Vs Opinion Defamatory at Common Law Foreign Language Broadcast Statements of Fact and Opinion

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 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Amrik Singh Sahota

Claimant

Middlesex Broadcasting Corporation Limited

First Defendant

Jaswant Singh Bharj (aka Jaswant Singh Thekedar)

Second Defendant

Parminder Singh Bal

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Preliminary Issues Determination (meaning, Defamatory Nature, Fact/opinion)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the natural and ordinary meaning of the words complained of?
  2. 2 Are those meanings defamatory at common law?
  3. 3 Which parts of those meanings are statements of fact and which are statements of opinion?

Ratio Decidendi

The words complained of, in their natural and ordinary meaning, conveyed that the Claimant deceived and misled people by his protest; is not a true supporter of Khalistan but a hireling whose allegiance can be bought; is not a true Sikh due to disrespecting the Sikh religion; by standing with Kashmiri terrorists, risked dividing the Sikh community and involving Sikhs in violence, hatred and terrorism; and that the Claimant and his family commercialised the sale of the sacred Guru Granth Sahib. Meanings (i), (ii), and (iv) are defamatory at common law; (iii) and (v) are not. Parts of meanings (ii), (iii), and (iv) are opinion, the rest are fact.

Court Disposition

Preliminary issues determined: natural and ordinary meanings found; some meanings held defamatory at common law; fact/opinion distinction drawn.

Orders

  • Meanings (i), (ii), and (iv) are defamatory at common law; (iii) and (v) are not.
  • Parts of meanings (ii), (iii), and (iv) are statements of opinion; the rest are statements of fact.