Keays v Guardian Newspapers Ltd. & Ors [2003] EWHC 1565 (QB) (01 July 2003)

Keays v Guardian Newspapers Ltd. & Ors [2003] EWHC 1565 (QB) (01 July 2003)

The article in question was a comment piece, clearly labelled as such, and consisted of inferences and value judgments about the claimant's motives and conduct, based on facts in the public domain. No reasonable jury could classify the words as factual allegations requiring proof of their truth. Therefore, the words are only capable of being regarded as comment, and the defence of fair comment is available to the defendants.

Citation
[2003] EWHC 1565 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Sara Keays; Defendant: Guardian Newspapers Limited; Defendant: Roger Alton; Defendant: Carol Sarler
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 July 2003
Procedural Posture
Libel Claim (defamation) / Interlocutory Application—ruling on Whether Words Are Capable Only of Being Comment, Not Fact
Outcome
Application granted—ruled that the words complained of are only capable of being regarded as comment, not fact.
Legal Topics
Libel, Fair Comment Defence, Freedom of Expression, Distinction Between Fact and Comment, Article 10 ECHR
Media Law Defamation Tort Libel Fair Comment Defence Freedom of Expression Distinction Between Fact and Comment Article 10 ECHR

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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sara Keays

Claimant

Guardian Newspapers Limited

Defendant

Roger Alton

Defendant

Carol Sarler

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Claim (defamation) / Interlocutory Application—ruling on Whether Words Are Capable Only of Being Comment, Not Fact

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the words complained of in the Observer article are only capable of being regarded as comment and not fact
  2. 2 Whether the defence of fair comment is available to the defendants

Ratio Decidendi

The article in question was a comment piece, clearly labelled as such, and consisted of inferences and value judgments about the claimant's motives and conduct, based on facts in the public domain. No reasonable jury could classify the words as factual allegations requiring proof of their truth. Therefore, the words are only capable of being regarded as comment, and the defence of fair comment is available to the defendants.

Court Disposition

Application granted—ruled that the words complained of are only capable of being regarded as comment, not fact.

Orders

  • Permission granted to amend particulars of claim to add 'sexually explicit' in sub-paragraph (iii).
  • Defendants' application upheld—words only capable of being comment.