Paisley v Linehan (Rev1) [2024] EWHC 1976 (KB) (01 August 2024)

Paisley v Linehan (Rev1) [2024] EWHC 1976 (KB) (01 August 2024)

The court held that the statements in Publication 1 conveyed the meaning that the claimant has an unhealthy interest in small children and there is a real possibility he may be a paedophile, by way of opinion, and that this is defamatory at common law. In Publication 2, the statements meant the claimant has targeted a lesbian woman by making a complaint to the police that appears to be vexatious, as part of a campaign of misogynistic and homophobic harassment, in the course of which he has lied; the 'vexatious' element is opinion, the rest is fact, and the meaning is defamatory. In Publication 3, the statements meant the claimant has engaged in a campaign of bullying and harassment aimed...

Citation
[2024] EWHC 1976 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: David Paisley; Defendant: Graham Linehan
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 August 2024
Procedural Posture
Libel and Other Torts (media & Communications) / Trial of Preliminary Issues (meaning, Defamatory Tendency, Fact/opinion)
Outcome
Preliminary issues determined as to meaning, defamatory tendency, and fact/opinion for Publications 1-3 and the article in Publication 4; no determination for comments in Publication 4.
Legal Topics
Libel, Online Publication, Fact Vs Opinion, Defamatory Meaning, Vulgar Abuse, Comment Threads, Harassment Allegations
Defamation Media Law Libel Online Publication Fact Vs Opinion Defamatory Meaning Vulgar Abuse Comment Threads +1 more

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 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Paisley

Claimant

Graham Linehan

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel and Other Torts (media & Communications) / Trial of Preliminary Issues (meaning, Defamatory Tendency, Fact/opinion)

Legal Issues

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

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the statements in Publication 1 conveyed the meaning that the claimant has an unhealthy interest in small children and there is a real possibility he may be a paedophile, by way of opinion, and that this is defamatory at common law. In Publication 2, the statements meant the claimant has targeted a lesbian woman by making a complaint to the police that appears to be vexatious, as part of a campaign of misogynistic and homophobic harassment, in the course of which he has lied; the 'vexatious' element is opinion, the rest is fact, and the meaning is defamatory. In Publication 3, the statements meant the claimant has engaged in a campaign of bullying and harassment aimed...

Court Disposition

Preliminary issues determined as to meaning, defamatory tendency, and fact/opinion for Publications 1-3 and the article in Publication 4; no determination for comments in Publication 4.

Orders

  • Parties to clarify and plead specific meanings for individual comments or groups of comments in Publication 4 if further determination is sought.
  • No further orders as to damages or final relief at this stage.