RAJ v MSH [2026] EWHC 80 (KB) (19 January 2026)

RAJ v MSH [2026] EWHC 80 (KB) (19 January 2026)

The statements in both the Review Request and Academic Appeal bear Chase Level 1 meanings, alleging actual misconduct by the Claimant, and are defamatory at common law. Most statements are allegations of fact; only the suggestion that the Claimant was asking for a sexual relationship (by asking the Defendant to 'get close') is an expression of opinion. For malicious falsehood, the Claimant's pleaded meanings are within the range of available meanings.

Citation
[2026] EWHC 80 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: RAJ; Defendant: MSH
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 January 2026
Procedural Posture
Libel and Malicious Falsehood (trial of Preliminary Issues) / Judgment on Preliminary Issues (meaning, Fact/opinion, Defamatory at Common Law)
Outcome
Preliminary issues determined; meanings set out; costs in the case; malicious falsehood claim may proceed on pleaded meanings.
Legal Topics
Libel, Malicious Falsehood, Meaning of Words, Fact Vs Opinion, Defamatory at Common Law, Chase Levels, University Disciplinary Proceedings, Discrimination, Sexual Harassment
Defamation Tort Media Law Libel Malicious Falsehood Meaning of Words Fact Vs Opinion Defamatory at Common Law +4 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 6 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

RAJ

Claimant

MSH

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel and Malicious Falsehood (trial of Preliminary Issues) / Judgment on Preliminary Issues (meaning, Fact/opinion, Defamatory at Common Law)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the single natural and ordinary meaning of the words complained of in the Review Request and Academic Appeal?
  2. 2 Are the statements allegations of fact or expressions of opinion?
  3. 3 Are the statements defamatory at common law?

Ratio Decidendi

The statements in both the Review Request and Academic Appeal bear Chase Level 1 meanings, alleging actual misconduct by the Claimant, and are defamatory at common law. Most statements are allegations of fact; only the suggestion that the Claimant was asking for a sexual relationship (by asking the Defendant to 'get close') is an expression of opinion. For malicious falsehood, the Claimant's pleaded meanings are within the range of available meanings.

Court Disposition

Preliminary issues determined; meanings set out; costs in the case; malicious falsehood claim may proceed on pleaded meanings.

Orders

  • The statements bear the single natural and ordinary meanings set out in paragraphs 33 and 40 of the judgment.
  • The underlined part of those meanings is an expression of opinion; the remainder are statements of fact.