White v Express Newspapers

The words complained of do not allege actual guilt or wrongdoing but convey that there are reasonable grounds to suspect Mr Callaghan used insider information from Mr White to place winning bets, and so reasonable grounds to suspect both men acted dishonestly.

Parties: Claimant: James White; Defendant: Express Newspapers; Claimant: John Callaghan
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 18 March 2014
Procedural Posture: Libel Action / Preliminary Issue Determination of Meaning
Outcome: Court determined the meaning of the words as alleged by the Claimants.
Legal Topics: Meaning of Defamatory Words, Levels of Defamatory Meaning, Fact Vs Opinion

Defamation Meaning of Defamatory Words Levels of Defamatory Meaning Fact Vs Opinion

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4

Parties

James White

Claimant

Express Newspapers

Defendant

John Callaghan

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Libel Action / Preliminary Issue Determination of Meaning

Legal Issues

1 Whether the words complained of are capable of bearing the meanings attributed to them by the Claimants
2 Whether the words are defamatory of Mr White and Mr Callaghan
3 Whether the words allege actual guilt or only suspicion

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Court determined the meaning of the words as alleged by the Claimants.

Orders

The meaning of the words complained of is that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that Mr Callaghan used insider information communicated to him by Mr White to place winning bets, and so reasonable grounds to suspect that both men acted dishonestly to enable Mr Callaghan to place winning bets.