Eraut v Cheyney [2024] EWHC 3232 (KB) (18 July 2024)

Eraut v Cheyney [2024] EWHC 3232 (KB) (18 July 2024)

The email conveyed as a matter of fact that the Claimant was guilty of wrongdoing in his capacity as a director, which was so serious that his removal was required. Both elements were statements of fact, not opinion. The meaning was defamatory at common law.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 3232 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: Patrick Michael Eraut; Defendant: Nicholas George Brian Cheyney
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 July 2024
Procedural Posture
Libel Claim / Trial of Preliminary Issues
Outcome
Judgment for the Claimant on all three preliminary issues.
Legal Topics
Libel, Meaning of Defamatory Statements, Fact Vs Opinion, Threshold of Seriousness
Defamation Media Law Libel Meaning of Defamatory Statements Fact Vs Opinion Threshold of Seriousness

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patrick Michael Eraut

Claimant

Nicholas George Brian Cheyney

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Claim / Trial of Preliminary Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the natural and ordinary meaning of the statement complained of?
  2. 2 Is the statement one of fact and/or opinion?
  3. 3 Is the statement defamatory at common law?

Ratio Decidendi

The email conveyed as a matter of fact that the Claimant was guilty of wrongdoing in his capacity as a director, which was so serious that his removal was required. Both elements were statements of fact, not opinion. The meaning was defamatory at common law.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Claimant on all three preliminary issues.