Rufus v Elliott [2015] EWHC 807 (QB) (24 March 2015)

Rufus v Elliott [2015] EWHC 807 (QB) (24 March 2015)

The Press Release, by innuendo, meant that Mr Rufus had made public a text message in which Mr Elliott used a racist term, leading to Mr Elliott's resignation. This conduct would not lower Mr Rufus in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally, as society would not disapprove of exposing such behaviour by a public figure. Therefore, the words were not defamatory of Mr Rufus.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 807
Parties
Claimant: Richard Rufus; Defendant: Paul Elliott
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Libel Action / Trial of Preliminary Issue on Whether Words Are Defamatory
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Defamatory Meaning, Innuendo, Standards of Right Thinking People, Libel, Public Interest Disclosure
Defamation Media Law Defamatory Meaning Innuendo Standards of Right Thinking People Libel Public Interest Disclosure

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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard Rufus

Claimant

Paul Elliott

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Action / Trial of Preliminary Issue on Whether Words Are Defamatory

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Press Release was defamatory of Mr Rufus
  2. 2 Whether the meaning attributed to Mr Rufus was defamatory by the standards of right-thinking people

Ratio Decidendi

The Press Release, by innuendo, meant that Mr Rufus had made public a text message in which Mr Elliott used a racist term, leading to Mr Elliott's resignation. This conduct would not lower Mr Rufus in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally, as society would not disapprove of exposing such behaviour by a public figure. Therefore, the words were not defamatory of Mr Rufus.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • The words complained of are not defamatory of the claimant.