Kirkegaard v Smith [2019] EWHC 3393 (QB) (11 December 2019)

Kirkegaard v Smith [2019] EWHC 3393 (QB) (11 December 2019)

The posts, when read in their full context including hyperlinked material and the nature of the online debate, would be understood by the ordinary reasonable reader as expressions of opinion, not assertions of fact, and are defamatory of the claimant at common law.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 3393
Parties
Claimant: Emil Kirkegaard; Defendant: Oliver Smith
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Trial of Preliminary Issues (meaning and Fact/opinion)
Outcome
All four posts are held to be expressions of opinion, not statements of fact, and are defamatory of the claimant at common law.
Legal Topics
Meaning in Defamation, Fact Vs Opinion, Context and Hyperlinks, Defamatory Statements, Social Media Publications
Defamation Media Law Meaning in Defamation Fact Vs Opinion Context and Hyperlinks Defamatory Statements Social Media Publications

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 22 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Emil Kirkegaard

Claimant

Oliver Smith

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Trial of Preliminary Issues (meaning and Fact/opinion)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the words complained of bear the meanings pleaded by the claimant
  2. 2 Whether those meanings are defamatory of the claimant
  3. 3 Whether the words are statements of fact or expressions of opinion

Ratio Decidendi

The posts, when read in their full context including hyperlinked material and the nature of the online debate, would be understood by the ordinary reasonable reader as expressions of opinion, not assertions of fact, and are defamatory of the claimant at common law.

Court Disposition

All four posts are held to be expressions of opinion, not statements of fact, and are defamatory of the claimant at common law.

Orders

  • Preliminary issues determined: words are opinion, not fact; defamatory at common law.