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

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

The court found that, considering the full context including hyperlinked material and the nature of the online debate, the words complained of in all four posts were expressions of opinion, not assertions of fact, and those opinions were defamatory of the Claimant at common law.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 3393 (QB)
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
Preliminary issues determined: all posts found to be expressions of opinion, defamatory at common law.
Legal Topics
Meaning in Defamation, Fact Vs Opinion, Online Publication Context, Hyperlinks as Context, Defamatory Statements
Defamation Media Law Meaning in Defamation Fact Vs Opinion Online Publication Context Hyperlinks as Context Defamatory Statements

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 21 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
  2. 2 Whether those meanings are defamatory of the Claimant
  3. 3 Whether the statements are fact or opinion

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, considering the full context including hyperlinked material and the nature of the online debate, the words complained of in all four posts were expressions of opinion, not assertions of fact, and those opinions were defamatory of the Claimant at common law.

Court Disposition

Preliminary issues determined: all posts found to be expressions of opinion, defamatory at common law.

Orders

  • Court ruled the meanings of the posts are expressions of opinion and defamatory of the Claimant.
  • No determination on serious harm under s 1 of the Defamation Act 2013.