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 natural and ordinary meaning 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. These are expressions of opinion, not fact, and are 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 not reasonably available for libel but a reduced version is capable for malicious falsehood.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 3563 (QB)
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 Meaning for Malicious Falsehood
Outcome
Preliminary issues determined: Announcement's meaning is not seriously defamatory for libel; Claimant must prove serious harm to continue libel claim; reduced meaning is capable for malicious falsehood.
Legal Topics
Libel, Malicious Falsehood, Serious Harm Threshold, Directors' Duties, Corporate Governance, Natural and Ordinary Meaning, Fact Vs Opinion, Regulatory Announcements
Defamation Media Law Company Law Libel Malicious Falsehood Serious Harm Threshold Directors' Duties Corporate Governance +3 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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
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 Meaning 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 natural and ordinary meaning 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. These are expressions of opinion, not fact, and are 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 not reasonably available for libel but a reduced version is capable for malicious falsehood.

Court Disposition

Preliminary issues determined: Announcement's meaning is not seriously defamatory for libel; Claimant must prove serious harm to continue libel claim; reduced meaning is capable for malicious falsehood.

Orders

  • No defence required to be served until after determination of preliminary issues.
  • If Claimant continues libel claim, must establish serious harm by evidence.