Greenstein v Campaign Against Antisemitism [2019] EWHC 281 (QB) (15 February 2019)

Greenstein v Campaign Against Antisemitism [2019] EWHC 281 (QB) (15 February 2019)

The court held that the principal meaning of the articles—that the claimant was anti-Semitic—was an expression of opinion, not fact, in the context of each article. In the first article, the additional imputations that the claimant had lied to The Guardian and the Charity Commission were also expressions of opinion, while the imputation that he had committed criminal offences was an allegation of fact. All were defamatory at common law. The context, use of supporting reasons, and the contentious nature of the subject led the ordinary reasonable reader to understand the statements as opinion except for the reference to previous convictions.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 281 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Tony Greenstein; Defendant: Campaign Against Antisemitism
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Libel/defamation / Trial of Preliminary Issues (meaning and Fact/opinion)
Outcome
Preliminary issues determined; meanings and fact/opinion status established for trial.
Legal Topics
Libel, Meaning of Defamatory Statements, Fact Vs Opinion, Defamatory Imputations, Online Publication, Hyperlinks as Context
Defamation Media Law Libel Meaning of Defamatory Statements Fact Vs Opinion Defamatory Imputations Online Publication Hyperlinks as Context

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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tony Greenstein

Claimant

Campaign Against Antisemitism

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel/defamation / Trial of Preliminary Issues (meaning and Fact/opinion)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the natural and ordinary meaning of the words complained of in the five articles?
  2. 2 Are the defamatory imputations allegations of fact or expressions of opinion?

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the principal meaning of the articles—that the claimant was anti-Semitic—was an expression of opinion, not fact, in the context of each article. In the first article, the additional imputations that the claimant had lied to The Guardian and the Charity Commission were also expressions of opinion, while the imputation that he had committed criminal offences was an allegation of fact. All were defamatory at common law. The context, use of supporting reasons, and the contentious nature of the subject led the ordinary reasonable reader to understand the statements as opinion except for the reference to previous convictions.

Court Disposition

Preliminary issues determined; meanings and fact/opinion status established for trial.

Orders

  • First article: claimant was anti-Semitic (opinion), had lied to The Guardian (opinion), had lied to the Charity Commission (opinion), had committed criminal offences (fact).
  • Second to fifth articles: claimant was anti-Semitic (opinion).