Ager v Career Development Finance Ltd & Ors

Ager v Career Development Finance Ltd & Ors

The words complained of bore the meanings that (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, and (3) the claimant inappropriately posts links to his films with unsavoury content on children's websites he hosts, which is inexplicable and worrying. The factual elements of these meanings are defamatory at common law, as they would tend to lower the claimant in the estimation of right-thinking people. Descriptive terms such as 'shocking', 'hypocritically', 'inexplicable', and 'worrying' are opinion, not fact.

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
Civil Defamation / Judgment on Preliminary Issues (meaning, Fact/opinion, Defamatory at Common Law)
Outcome
Preliminary issues determined; meanings found; words held 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 4 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

Civil Defamation / 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 words complained of bore the meanings that (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, and (3) the claimant inappropriately posts links to his films with unsavoury content on children's websites he hosts, which is inexplicable and worrying. The factual elements of these meanings are defamatory at common law, as they would tend to lower the claimant in the estimation of right-thinking people. Descriptive terms such as 'shocking', 'hypocritically', 'inexplicable', and 'worrying' are opinion, not fact.

Court Disposition

Preliminary issues determined; meanings found; words held defamatory at common law