Ager v Career Development Finance Ltd & Ors [2019] EWHC 2830 (QB) (25 October 2019)

Ager v Career Development Finance Ltd & Ors [2019] EWHC 2830 (QB) (25 October 2019)

The court found that the words complained of bore the following meanings: (1) there are some grounds to suspect the claimant is guilty of tax and benefit fraud; (2) the claimant shockingly abandoned his father to die in squalor and hypocritically berated social services; (3) the claimant inappropriately posts on children's websites, including one he hosts, links to his films showing sickening scenes and other inappropriate adult content, which is inexplicable and worrying. Meanings (1) and (3) are statements of fact; meaning (2) is fact with elements of opinion ('shockingly', 'hypocritically'). All three meanings are defamatory at common law.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 2830 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Robert Ager; Defendant: Career Development Finance Ltd; Defendant: Metropolitan International Schools Ltd; Defendant: Jan Telensky
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Libel and Harassment Claim / Judgment on Preliminary Issues (meaning, Fact/opinion, Defamatory at Common Law)
Outcome
Preliminary issues determined: the words complained of bear the meanings found by the court, are statements of fact (with some opinion), and are defamatory at common law.
Legal Topics
Libel, Harassment, Meaning of Defamatory Statements, Fact Vs Opinion, Defamatory at Common Law
Defamation Media Law Libel Harassment Meaning of Defamatory Statements Fact Vs Opinion Defamatory at Common Law

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 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Ager

Claimant

Career Development Finance Ltd

Defendant

Metropolitan International Schools Ltd

Defendant

Jan Telensky

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel and Harassment Claim / Judgment on Preliminary Issues (meaning, Fact/opinion, Defamatory at Common Law)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the natural and ordinary meaning of the words complained of?
  2. 2 Are the words statements of fact or opinion?
  3. 3 Are the words defamatory at common law?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the words complained of bore the following meanings: (1) there are some grounds to suspect the claimant is guilty of tax and benefit fraud; (2) the claimant shockingly abandoned his father to die in squalor and hypocritically berated social services; (3) the claimant inappropriately posts on children's websites, including one he hosts, links to his films showing sickening scenes and other inappropriate adult content, which is inexplicable and worrying. Meanings (1) and (3) are statements of fact; meaning (2) is fact with elements of opinion ('shockingly', 'hypocritically'). All three meanings are defamatory at common law.

Court Disposition

Preliminary issues determined: the words complained of bear the meanings found by the court, are statements of fact (with some opinion), and are defamatory at common law.

Orders

  • Meanings of the words complained of determined as set out in the judgment.
  • Words found to be statements of fact or opinion as specified.