Connell v MGN Ltd [2008] NIQB 90 (5 September 2008)
The only meaning capable of being borne by the article, as alleged by the plaintiff, is that if the jury found the plaintiff posed for the photograph in front of the mural, it would be open to them to find she proudly, openly and publicly associated herself with Raymond McCreesh. All other alleged meanings and particulars of innuendo are not sustainable as a matter of law and must be struck out.
- Citation
- [2008] NIQB 90
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Ann Connell; Defendant: MGN Ltd
- Jurisdiction
- Northern Ireland
- Judgment Date
- 05 September 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Libel Action (defamation) / Interlocutory Application Under Order 82 Rule 3 a for Determination of Meanings
- Outcome
- Application granted in part; only one meaning allowed to proceed to trial; all other meanings and particulars of innuendo struck out.
- Legal Topics
- Libel, Meaning of Defamatory Statements, Order 82 Rule 3 a Applications, Innuendo Meanings
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Ann Connell
Plaintiff
MGN Ltd
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Libel Action (defamation) / Interlocutory Application Under Order 82 Rule 3 a for Determination of Meanings
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the words and images complained of are capable of bearing the defamatory meanings alleged by the plaintiff
- 2 Whether particulars of innuendo pleaded by the plaintiff are sustainable
Ratio Decidendi
The only meaning capable of being borne by the article, as alleged by the plaintiff, is that if the jury found the plaintiff posed for the photograph in front of the mural, it would be open to them to find she proudly, openly and publicly associated herself with Raymond McCreesh. All other alleged meanings and particulars of innuendo are not sustainable as a matter of law and must be struck out.
Court Disposition
Application granted in part; only one meaning allowed to proceed to trial; all other meanings and particulars of innuendo struck out.
Orders
- Meanings alleged at paragraph 4 (a)-(f), (h) and all particulars of innuendo struck out; only meaning at paragraph 4(g) allowed to proceed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment