Tinkler v Ferguson & Ors (Rev 1) [2018] EWHC 3563 (QB) (17 December 2018)

Tinkler v Ferguson & Ors (Rev 1) [2018] EWHC 3563 (QB) (17 December 2018)

The Announcement's single meaning for defamation purposes is that the Claimant presented a series of challenges to the Board, including opposition to the Chairman's re-election, which the Board viewed as disruptive, unreasonable, regrettable, and destabilising. This is largely opinion, not fact, and not seriously defamatory so as to raise an inference of serious harm under s.1 Defamation Act 2013. The meanings advanced by the Claimant are strained and not supported by the text. For malicious falsehood, a capable meaning is that the Claimant destabilised the Board at a crucial time and required the Board to deal with certain challenges.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 3563
Parties
Claimant: William Andrew Tinkler; Defendant: Iain George Thomas Ferguson; Defendant: Warwick Brady; Defendant: John David Francis Coombs; Defendant: Richard John Laycock; Defendant: Andrew Richard Wood
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Libel and Malicious Falsehood / Preliminary Issues Trial on Meaning, Fact/opinion, Serious Harm, and Capable Meanings for Malicious Falsehood
Outcome
Preliminary issues determined; meanings found; Claimant must prove serious harm to continue defamation claim.
Legal Topics
Libel, Malicious Falsehood, Defamatory Meaning, Serious Harm, Fact or Opinion, Corporate Governance, Directors' Duties
Defamation Media Law Tort Libel Malicious Falsehood Defamatory Meaning Serious Harm Fact or Opinion +2 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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Andrew Tinkler

Claimant

Iain George Thomas Ferguson

Defendant

Warwick Brady

Defendant

John David Francis Coombs

Defendant

Richard John Laycock

Defendant

Andrew Richard Wood

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel and Malicious Falsehood / Preliminary Issues Trial on Meaning, Fact/opinion, Serious Harm, and Capable Meanings for Malicious Falsehood

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the natural and ordinary meaning of the words complained of for the libel claim?
  2. 2 Are the meanings fact or opinion?
  3. 3 Does the meaning found raise the inference of serious harm under s.1 Defamation Act 2013?

Ratio Decidendi

The Announcement's single meaning for defamation purposes is that the Claimant presented a series of challenges to the Board, including opposition to the Chairman's re-election, which the Board viewed as disruptive, unreasonable, regrettable, and destabilising. This is largely opinion, not fact, and not seriously defamatory so as to raise an inference of serious harm under s.1 Defamation Act 2013. The meanings advanced by the Claimant are strained and not supported by the text. For malicious falsehood, a capable meaning is that the Claimant destabilised the Board at a crucial time and required the Board to deal with certain challenges.

Court Disposition

Preliminary issues determined; meanings found; Claimant must prove serious harm to continue defamation claim.

Orders

  • The single meaning of the Announcement for defamation purposes is as set out in the judgment.
  • The meanings advanced by the Claimant are not the natural and ordinary meaning of the words.