Smith v Baker [2022] EWHC 246 (QB) (10 February 2022)

Smith v Baker [2022] EWHC 246 (QB) (10 February 2022)

The court determined, for each of the eleven publications, the natural and ordinary meaning of the statements complained of, whether they were statements of fact or opinion, and whether they were defamatory at common law. The court found that the majority of the statements conveyed that Ms Baker was mentally ill,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 246
Parties
Claimant: Samuel Collingwood Smith; Defendant: Esther Ruth Baker
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 February 2022
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Preliminary Issues Determination on Meaning, Fact/opinion, and Defamatory Tendency at Common Law
Outcome
Determination of preliminary issues; findings on meaning, fact/opinion, and defamatory tendency for each publication.
Legal Topics
Meaning of Statements, Fact Vs Opinion, Defamatory Tendency, Repetition Rule, Mental Illness and Defamation, Chase Levels, Serious Harm Threshold
Defamation Media Law Meaning of Statements Fact Vs Opinion Defamatory Tendency Repetition Rule Mental Illness and Defamation Chase Levels +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 5 Authorities cited 33 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samuel Collingwood Smith

Claimant

Esther Ruth Baker

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Preliminary Issues Determination on Meaning, Fact/opinion, and Defamatory Tendency at Common Law

Legal Issues

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

Ratio Decidendi

The court determined, for each of the eleven publications, the natural and ordinary meaning of the statements complained of, whether they were statements of fact or opinion, and whether they were defamatory at common law. The court found that the majority of the statements conveyed that Ms Baker was mentally ill, deluded, a fantasist, a liar, or a criminal, and that her allegations were untrue, dangerous, and had wasted public resources. These meanings were held to be statements of fact (with some expressions of opinion), and all were found to be defamatory at common law, subject to context and the repetition rule.

Court Disposition

Determination of preliminary issues; findings on meaning, fact/opinion, and defamatory tendency for each publication.

Orders

  • Meanings of the statements set out for each publication as per judgment.
  • Findings on whether each statement is fact or opinion as per judgment.