Sahota v Middlesex Broadcasting Corporation Ltd & Ors [2021] EWHC 504 (QB) (05 March 2021)

Sahota v Middlesex Broadcasting Corporation Ltd & Ors [2021] EWHC 504 (QB) (05 March 2021)

The court found that the words complained of bore the following meanings: (i) by his protest, the claimant deceived and misled people (statement of fact, defamatory); (ii) the claimant is not a true supporter of Khalistan independence but a hireling whose allegiance can be bought, supporting the cause only when paid by Lord Ahmed (fact and opinion, defamatory); (iii) the claimant is not a true Sikh, having shown disrespect for the Sikh religion by altering the Nishan Sahib (fact and opinion, not defamatory); (iv) by standing with Kashmiri terrorists, the claimant showed ignorance and risked dividing the Sikh community and involving Sikhs in violence, hatred and terrorism (fact and...

Citation
[2021] EWHC 504
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 Tendency, Fact/opinion, Basis of Opinion)
Outcome
Preliminary issues determined: meanings found, defamatory tendency identified for some meanings, fact/opinion distinguished, basis of opinion indicated.
Legal Topics
Natural and Ordinary Meaning, Defamatory Tendency, Fact Vs Opinion, Foreign Language Broadcast, Basis of Opinion
Media Law Defamation Natural and Ordinary Meaning Defamatory Tendency Fact Vs Opinion Foreign Language Broadcast Basis of 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 Tendency, Fact/opinion, Basis of 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 court found that the words complained of bore the following meanings: (i) by his protest, the claimant deceived and misled people (statement of fact, defamatory); (ii) the claimant is not a true supporter of Khalistan independence but a hireling whose allegiance can be bought, supporting the cause only when paid by Lord Ahmed (fact and opinion, defamatory); (iii) the claimant is not a true Sikh, having shown disrespect for the Sikh religion by altering the Nishan Sahib (fact and opinion, not defamatory); (iv) by standing with Kashmiri terrorists, the claimant showed ignorance and risked dividing the Sikh community and involving Sikhs in violence, hatred and terrorism (fact and...

Court Disposition

Preliminary issues determined: meanings found, defamatory tendency identified for some meanings, fact/opinion distinguished, basis of opinion indicated.

Orders

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