Miller v Associated Newspapers Ltd

Miller v Associated Newspapers Ltd

The words complained of meant that there were, at the date of publication, reasonable grounds to suspect that Mr Miller was a willing beneficiary of improper conduct and cronyism because of his friendship with Sir Ian Blair in respect of the award of a number of Metropolitan Police Service contracts to Mr Miller’s company worth millions of pounds of public money, and that that is a meaning defamatory of Mr Miller.

Parties
Claimant: Andrew James Miller; Defendant: Associated Newspapers Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 November 2011
Procedural Posture
Libel Action / Trial of Preliminary Issue on Meaning
Outcome
The words complained of bear a defamatory meaning at Chase Level 2.
Legal Topics
Libel, Defamatory Meaning, Chase Levels, Cronyism, Public Contracts

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrew James Miller

Claimant

Associated Newspapers Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Action / Trial of Preliminary Issue on Meaning

  1. 1 What is the natural and ordinary meaning of the words complained of?
  2. 2 Do the words bear a defamatory meaning of the claimant?
  3. 3 At what Chase level is the imputation made?

Ratio Decidendi

The words complained of meant that there were, at the date of publication, reasonable grounds to suspect that Mr Miller was a willing beneficiary of improper conduct and cronyism because of his friendship with Sir Ian Blair in respect of the award of a number of Metropolitan Police Service contracts to Mr Miller’s company worth millions of pounds of public money, and that that is a meaning defamatory of Mr Miller.

Court Disposition

The words complained of bear a defamatory meaning at Chase Level 2.