Riley v Murray [2020] EWHC 977 (QB) (24 April 2020)

Riley v Murray [2020] EWHC 977 (QB) (24 April 2020)

The Tweet's natural and ordinary meaning is that Jeremy Corbyn had been attacked, the Claimant had publicly stated he deserved to be violently attacked, and by so doing, the Claimant showed herself to be dangerous and stupid, risking incitement of unlawful violence. Paragraphs (1) and (2) are statements of fact; paragraph (3) is opinion. Paragraphs (2) and (3) are defamatory at common law. Contextual material relied upon by the Defendant is inadmissible; the Tweet is self-contained.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 977
Parties
Claimant: Rachel Riley; Defendant: Laura Murray
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 April 2020
Procedural Posture
Libel Action / Preliminary Issues Trial
Outcome
Determination of preliminary issues; findings on meaning, fact/opinion, and defamatory tendency.
Legal Topics
Libel, Social Media Publication, Defamatory Meaning, Fact Vs Opinion, Innuendo Meaning
Defamation Media Law Libel Social Media Publication Defamatory Meaning Fact Vs Opinion Innuendo Meaning

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 5 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rachel Riley

Claimant

Laura Murray

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Action / Preliminary Issues Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the natural and ordinary meaning of the Tweet?
  2. 2 Does the Tweet convey a statement of fact or opinion?
  3. 3 Is the meaning defamatory at common law?

Ratio Decidendi

The Tweet's natural and ordinary meaning is that Jeremy Corbyn had been attacked, the Claimant had publicly stated he deserved to be violently attacked, and by so doing, the Claimant showed herself to be dangerous and stupid, risking incitement of unlawful violence. Paragraphs (1) and (2) are statements of fact; paragraph (3) is opinion. Paragraphs (2) and (3) are defamatory at common law. Contextual material relied upon by the Defendant is inadmissible; the Tweet is self-contained.

Court Disposition

Determination of preliminary issues; findings on meaning, fact/opinion, and defamatory tendency.

Orders

  • Paragraphs (1) and (2) of the Tweet are statements of fact; paragraph (3) is opinion.
  • Paragraphs (2) and (3) are defamatory at common law.