Zarb-Cousin v Association of British Bookmakers & Anor [2018] EWHC 2240 (QB) (19 July 2018)

Zarb-Cousin v Association of British Bookmakers & Anor [2018] EWHC 2240 (QB) (19 July 2018)

The words complained of conveyed a factual allegation that there were reasonable grounds to suspect the claimant was willing deliberately to mislead the Channel 4 News audience with inaccurate information because he was paid to do so by the casino industry. This meaning is defamatory at common law and sufficiently serious to infer serious harm to reputation.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 2240 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Matthew Zarb-Cousin; Defendant: Association of British Bookmakers; Defendant: Malcolm George
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Libel Proceedings / Trial of Preliminary Issues
Outcome
Findings on preliminary issues in favour of the claimant on meaning, defamatory nature, and serious harm; statement found to be fact, not opinion.
Legal Topics
Libel, Meaning of Defamatory Statements, Fact Vs Opinion, Serious Harm, Defamation Act 2013
Defamation Media Law Libel Meaning of Defamatory Statements Fact Vs Opinion Serious Harm Defamation Act 2013

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 27 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Matthew Zarb-Cousin

Claimant

Association of British Bookmakers

Defendant

Malcolm George

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Proceedings / Trial of Preliminary Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the natural and ordinary meaning of the words complained of?
  2. 2 Are the words defamatory at common law?
  3. 3 Has the publication caused or is it likely to cause serious harm to the claimant's reputation under s.1 Defamation Act 2013?

Ratio Decidendi

The words complained of conveyed a factual allegation that there were reasonable grounds to suspect the claimant was willing deliberately to mislead the Channel 4 News audience with inaccurate information because he was paid to do so by the casino industry. This meaning is defamatory at common law and sufficiently serious to infer serious harm to reputation.

Court Disposition

Findings on preliminary issues in favour of the claimant on meaning, defamatory nature, and serious harm; statement found to be fact, not opinion.