Thornton v Telegraph Media Group Ltd [2010] EWHC 1414 (QB) (16 June 2010)

Thornton v Telegraph Media Group Ltd [2010] EWHC 1414 (QB) (16 June 2010)

The court held that the words complained of, relating to the granting of copy approval, are not capable of being defamatory of the claimant, either as a personal or professional libel. The practice described does not impute moral blame or lack of integrity, nor does it meet the threshold of seriousness required for defamation. The words do not suggest the claimant is untrustworthy or fatally lacking in integrity and credibility as a researcher and writer. Accordingly, summary judgment is granted in favour of the defendant on this issue.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 1414
Parties
Claimant: Dr. Sarah Thornton; Defendant: Telegraph Media Group Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 June 2010
Procedural Posture
Libel Action / Application for Summary Judgment or Ruling on Meaning Under CPR PD53 Para 4.1
Outcome
Summary judgment granted in favour of the defendant on the issue of defamatory meaning regarding copy approval.
Legal Topics
Libel, Summary Judgment, Defamatory Meaning, Professional Reputation, Threshold of Seriousness
Defamation Media Law Libel Summary Judgment Defamatory Meaning Professional Reputation 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 5 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr. Sarah Thornton

Claimant

Telegraph Media Group Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Libel Action / Application for Summary Judgment or Ruling on Meaning Under CPR PD53 Para 4.1

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the words complained of are capable of being defamatory of the claimant
  2. 2 Whether the words are capable of bearing the meanings attributed by the claimant, including allegations of highly reprehensible conduct, untrustworthiness, or lack of integrity and credibility as a researcher and writer

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the words complained of, relating to the granting of copy approval, are not capable of being defamatory of the claimant, either as a personal or professional libel. The practice described does not impute moral blame or lack of integrity, nor does it meet the threshold of seriousness required for defamation. The words do not suggest the claimant is untrustworthy or fatally lacking in integrity and credibility as a researcher and writer. Accordingly, summary judgment is granted in favour of the defendant on this issue.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted in favour of the defendant on the issue of defamatory meaning regarding copy approval.

Orders

  • Summary judgment for the defendant on the issue of whether the words are capable of being defamatory of the claimant in respect of the copy approval allegation.