Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
England and Wales decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The High Court determined preliminary issues in a defamation claim about online posts, videos and billboards alleging serious criminality, and broadly accepted the claimant’s pleaded meanings.
Marinakis v Karypidou & Ors [2026] EWHC 1192 (KB) (20 May 2026)
High Court preliminary issues decision in a libel and unlawful means conspiracy claim over online publications alleging corruption, drug trafficking and match-fixing.
The court decided preliminary issues on meaning in a defamation claim over emails alleging a marketing rival had mis-sold advertising space and acted fraudulently.
Guerrilla Marketing Ltd v NGM Advertising Ltd & Ors [2026] EWHC 1085 (KB) (08 May 2026)
Preliminary defamation issues over emails alleging a rival falsely sold advertising space on screens it did not own.
RAJ v MSH [2026] EWHC 80 (KB) (19 January 2026)
Preliminary issues in a libel and malicious falsehood claim arising from university complaint emails alleging sexual harassment, victimisation, and discrimination.
Ranaie v Warland [2025] EWHC 3320 (KB) (17 December 2025)
The High Court held that a neighbour’s email to the claimant’s employer conveyed defamatory factual allegations of trespass, criminal damage and harassment, plus an opinion with an indicated basis.
A member of a trade union can defame that union as a matter of law due to the quasi-corporate status conferred by section 10 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, allowing the union to sue in tort, including defamation, in its own name. The statement in issue referred to the claimant and conveyed a defamatory meaning at Chase level 2, being an expression of opinion with the basis indicated in general terms.
Source excerpt
The First Post was not defamatory in its natural and ordinary meaning but was defamatory in its innuendo meaning to readers of both posts, as it accused the claimant of cynically exploiting her alleged victim status. The Second Post was defamatory both as an accusation of hypocrisy and as a statement that the claimant had cynically exploited her race.
Source excerpt
Aluko v Barton [2025] EWHC 853 (KB) (09 April 2025)
Defamation preliminary issues over social media posts about Eniola Aluko: the court found one post non-defamatory in its ordinary meaning but defamatory by innuendo.
The four statements, in their context, bore the meanings that the Claimant was intentionally and/or recklessly misleading his congregation and the public (Statement I), acting dishonestly towards his congregation (Statement II), had supplanted the previous pastor by discreditable means (Statement III), and had moral responsibility for the safety of his congregation with questions to answer about harm to members (Statement IV). Statements I, II, and III were statements of fact; Statement IV was opinion. All four were defamatory at common law.
Source excerpt
Explore more
