Alsaifi v Trinity Mirror Plc & Ors

Alsaifi v Trinity Mirror Plc & Ors

The vast majority of the First Article was a fair and accurate extract or summary of a public notice (the NCTL Decision Notice) and thus protected by statutory qualified privilege under the Defamation Act 1996. There was no tenable case of malice. The remaining parts of the article were honest opinion or so trivial that pursuing them would be an abuse of process. The words complained of were not capable of bearing most of the extreme defamatory meanings pleaded by the claimant, but were capable of bearing certain defamatory meanings within defined parameters. Summary judgment was granted for Trinity Mirror on privilege and honest opinion, and any residual claim was dismissed as an abuse....

Parties
Claimant: Tariq Alsaifi; First Defendant: Trinity Mirror Plc and Board of Directors; Second Defendant: Newcastle College Group and Board of Governors
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Defamation (libel) / Interim Applications: Summary Judgment and Ruling on Meaning
Outcome
Summary judgment for Trinity Mirror; claim against Newcastle College not determined.
Legal Topics
Qualified Privilege, Honest Opinion Defence, Meaning in Defamation, Summary Judgment, Abuse of Process, Reporting Privilege
Defamation Media Law Civil Procedure Qualified Privilege Honest Opinion Defence Meaning in Defamation Summary Judgment Abuse of Process +1 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 24 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tariq Alsaifi

Claimant

Trinity Mirror Plc and Board of Directors

First Defendant

Newcastle College Group and Board of Governors

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Defamation (libel) / Interim Applications: Summary Judgment and Ruling on Meaning

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Are the words complained of capable of bearing the defamatory meanings alleged by the claimant?
  2. 2 Does the defence of statutory qualified privilege under the Defamation Act 1996 apply to the First Article?
  3. 3 Is there any real prospect of the claimant defeating the privilege defence, including by proving malice?

Ratio Decidendi

The vast majority of the First Article was a fair and accurate extract or summary of a public notice (the NCTL Decision Notice) and thus protected by statutory qualified privilege under the Defamation Act 1996. There was no tenable case of malice. The remaining parts of the article were honest opinion or so trivial that pursuing them would be an abuse of process. The words complained of were not capable of bearing most of the extreme defamatory meanings pleaded by the claimant, but were capable of bearing certain defamatory meanings within defined parameters. Summary judgment was granted for Trinity Mirror on privilege and honest opinion, and any residual claim was dismissed as an abuse....

Court Disposition

Summary judgment for Trinity Mirror; claim against Newcastle College not determined.

Orders

  • Summary judgment entered for Trinity Mirror Plc and Board of Directors on the issues of privilege and honest opinion.
  • Any residual claim against Trinity Mirror dismissed as an abuse of process.