Cousins v ASDA Stores Ltd & Anor [2018] NIQB 35 (28 February 2018)

Cousins v ASDA Stores Ltd & Anor [2018] NIQB 35 (28 February 2018)

Meanings (a) and (d) (that the plaintiff is a thief or removed items without payment) are not capable of being borne by the words complained of by a reasonable reader; only meanings (b) and (c) (that there are grounds to suspect the plaintiff is a thief and that she is subject to a police investigation) are sustainable. Meanings (e) and (f) are surplusage and repetitious of (b) and (c) and should also be struck out.

Citation
[2018] NIQB 35
Parties
Plaintiff: Bernadette Cousins; First Named Defendant: ASDA Stores Limited; Second Named Defendant: MGN Limited; Third Named Defendant: The Tontine Rooms Holding Company Limited; Fourth Named Defendant: The Police Service of Northern Ireland
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
28 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Defamation (libel) Meanings Application / Interlocutory Application to Determine Permissible Meanings in Pleadings
Outcome
Application granted in part; certain meanings struck out from the statement of claim.
Legal Topics
Libel, Meaning of Defamatory Statements, Striking Out Pleadings, Interpretation of Publications
Defamation Media Law Civil Procedure Libel Meaning of Defamatory Statements Striking Out Pleadings Interpretation of Publications

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bernadette Cousins

Plaintiff

ASDA Stores Limited

First Named Defendant

MGN Limited

Second Named Defendant

The Tontine Rooms Holding Company Limited

Third Named Defendant

The Police Service of Northern Ireland

Fourth Named Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation (libel) Meanings Application / Interlocutory Application to Determine Permissible Meanings in Pleadings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the words complained of are capable of bearing the meanings attributed to them by the plaintiff
  2. 2 Whether certain pleaded meanings should be struck out as unsustainable or repetitious

Ratio Decidendi

Meanings (a) and (d) (that the plaintiff is a thief or removed items without payment) are not capable of being borne by the words complained of by a reasonable reader; only meanings (b) and (c) (that there are grounds to suspect the plaintiff is a thief and that she is subject to a police investigation) are sustainable. Meanings (e) and (f) are surplusage and repetitious of (b) and (c) and should also be struck out.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part; certain meanings struck out from the statement of claim.

Orders

  • Meanings (a), (d), (e), and (f) in paragraph 10 of the statement of claim are struck out.