GERALD MAPP v. NEWS GROUP NEWSPAPERS LIMITED and BERNARD JAMES GILLAN v. NEWS GROUP NEWSPAPERS LIMITED and ROBERT WATTON v. NEWS GROUP NEWSPAPERS LIMITED and PAUL JOHN GOSCOMB v. NEWS GROUP NEWSPAPERS LIMITED [1997] EWCA Civ 1107 (27th February, 1997)

GERALD MAPP v. NEWS GROUP NEWSPAPERS LIMITED and BERNARD JAMES GILLAN v. NEWS GROUP NEWSPAPERS LIMITED and ROBERT WATTON v. NEWS GROUP NEWSPAPERS LIMITED and PAUL JOHN GOSCOMB v. NEWS GROUP NEWSPAPERS LIMITED [1997] EWCA Civ 1107 (27th February, 1997)

The words complained of are incapable of bearing the pleaded meaning of imputing actual guilt to the plaintiffs; at most, they are capable of imputing reasonable suspicion, not guilt, and the judge must rule accordingly under O.82 r.3(a).

Citation
[1997] EWCA Civ 1107
Parties
Respondent/plaintiff: Gerald Mapp; Respondent/plaintiff: Bernard James Gillan; Respondent/plaintiff: Robert Watton; Respondent/plaintiff: Paul John Goscomb; Appellant/defendant: News Group Newspapers Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Meaning of Defamatory Words, Judge and Jury Roles in Defamation, Preliminary Rulings on Meaning, Threshold for Striking Out Meanings, Reasonable Reader Test
Defamation Media Law Civil Procedure Meaning of Defamatory Words Judge and Jury Roles in Defamation Preliminary Rulings on Meaning Threshold for Striking Out Meanings Reasonable Reader Test

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gerald Mapp

Respondent/plaintiff

Bernard James Gillan

Respondent/plaintiff

Robert Watton

Respondent/plaintiff

Paul John Goscomb

Respondent/plaintiff

News Group Newspapers Limited

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the words complained of are capable of bearing the pleaded defamatory meaning (imputation of actual guilt)
  2. 2 Proper approach for a judge under O.82 r.3(a) in ruling on meaning in defamation actions

Ratio Decidendi

The words complained of are incapable of bearing the pleaded meaning of imputing actual guilt to the plaintiffs; at most, they are capable of imputing reasonable suspicion, not guilt, and the judge must rule accordingly under O.82 r.3(a).

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Costs to be the appellant's costs in the Court of Appeal