Bond v British Broadcasting Corporation

Bond v British Broadcasting Corporation

The natural and ordinary meaning of the publications is that there are strong grounds to suspect the Claimant of having accepted 'bungs' or other corrupt payments from football agents, but not a positive assertion of guilt.

Parties
Claimant: Kevin Bond; Defendant: British Broadcasting Corporation
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 March 2009
Procedural Posture
Libel / Ruling on Defamatory Meaning
Outcome
Court finds that the publications bear a Chase Level Two meaning: strong grounds to suspect the Claimant of corrupt conduct.
Legal Topics
Libel, Media Law, Defamatory Meaning, Chase Level Two Meaning
Defamation Libel Media Law Defamatory Meaning Chase Level Two Meaning

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kevin Bond

Claimant

British Broadcasting Corporation

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel / Ruling on Defamatory Meaning

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the natural and ordinary meaning to be attributed to the words complained of in the publications?
  2. 2 Does the programme impute that the Claimant accepted corrupt payments in the past or only expressed interest in prospective payments?
  3. 3 Does the context of the programme create strong grounds to suspect the Claimant of corrupt conduct?

Ratio Decidendi

The natural and ordinary meaning of the publications is that there are strong grounds to suspect the Claimant of having accepted 'bungs' or other corrupt payments from football agents, but not a positive assertion of guilt.

Court Disposition

Court finds that the publications bear a Chase Level Two meaning: strong grounds to suspect the Claimant of corrupt conduct.