The plaintiffs were actors playing Harold and Madge Bishop in the Australian soap series ‘Neighbours’. They sued on a tabloid newspaper article which showed their faces superimposed on the near-naked bodies of models apparently engaged in sexual intercourse, with a headline ‘Strewth! What’s Harold up to with our Madge?’. The body of the article made clear that the photographs had been produced by pornographers without the plaintiffs’ consent. The claim was based on the contention that some readers would have looked only at the photographs and the headline, and complained that such readers would have thought that the plaintiffs had in some way consented to the production of the photographs. The defendant newspaper had published an article with a headline and illustrated by photographs. The plaintiff complained of the meaning which they said was conveyed to a publishee who read the headline and looked at the picture, but did not read the article. The question for the court was whether the publication could bear two meanings: one for that group of readers who read the headline and looked at the pictures, but did not read the article, and a second meaning for publishees who read and looked at all three, the headline, the pictures and the article.
Held: A plaintiff in defamation proceedings may not arbitrarily split off different parts of a publication without good reason. Words must be read in context, and as a whole. A potentially defamatory photograph was accompanied by text which should be read with it. It was accepted that the obviously defamatory headline and photographs were neutralised by the accompanying text.
The House set out the single meaning rule to the effect that for purposes of the law of libel a defamatory statement is taken to have a single meaning, to be determined by the judge or jury as appropriate, and this is so even if different readers would read the same statements as having different meanings. The statement must of course be read as a whole or, as it has been put, ‘the bane and the antidote must be taken together’.
Lord Nicholls said: ‘This is not to say that words in the text of an article will always be efficacious to cure a defamatory headline. It all depends on the context, one element in which is the lay out of the article. Those who print defamatory headlines are playing with fire. The ordinary reader might not be expected to notice curative words tucked away further down the article. The more so, if the words are on a continuation page to which a reader is directed. The standard of the ordinary reader gives [the Court] adequate scope to return a verdict meeting the justice of the case’. The proper approach is to determine what is the single meaning which the work conveys to the notional reasonable reader. ‘Whether the text of a newspaper article will, in any particular case, be sufficient to neutralise the defamatory implication of a prominent headline will sometimes be a nicely balanced question . . and will depend not only on the nature of the libel which the headline conveys and language of the text which is relied on to neutralise it, but also on the manner in which the whole of the relevant material is set out and presented.’ There is an artificiality about this approach since, especially in the case of a book, not all readers will read it from cover to cover.
Lord Bridge said: ‘[the essential basis on which Mr. Craig’s argument in support of the appeal rests is that, in appropriate circumstances, it is possible and legitimate to identify a particular group of readers who read only part of a publication which conveys to them a meaning injurious to the reputation of a plaintiff and that in principle the plaintiff should be entitled to damages for the consequent injury he suffers in the estimation of this group . . The first formidable obstacle which Mr. Craig’s argument encounters is a long and unbroken line of authority the effect of which is accurately summarised in Duncan and Neill on Defamation . . as follows: ‘In order to determine the natural and ordinary meaning of the words of which the plaintiff complains it is necessary to take into account the context in which the words were used and the mode of publication. Thus a plaintiff cannot select an isolated passage in an article and complain of that alone if other parts of the article throw a different light on that passage.’
. . And ‘Whether the text of a newspaper article will, in any particular case, be sufficient to neutralise the defamatory implication of a prominent headline will sometimes be a nicely balanced question for the jury to decide and will depend not only on the nature of the libel which the headline conveys and the language of the text which is relied on to neutralise it but also on the manner in which the whole of the relevant material is set out and presented. But the proposition that the prominent headline, or as here the headlines plus photographs, may found a claim in libel in isolation from its related text, because some readers only read headlines, is to my mind quite unacceptable in the light of the principles discussed above.’
Lord Nicholls, Lord Bridge
Times 31-Mar-1995, Independent 31-Mar-1995, [1995] 2 AC 65, [1995] UKHL 6, [1995] 2 All ER 313, [1995] 2 WLR 450
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Charleston and Another v News Group Newspapers Ltd CA 12-Jan-1994
A libel in published photographs was capable of being remedied by the accompanying article. The court should look to the publication as a whole. . .
Cited – Chalmers v Payne 1835
Bane and Antidote Doctrine – Take them as One
The court considered the bane and antidote doctrine in defamation. B Alderson said: ‘But the question here is, whether the matter be slanderous or not, which is a question of the Jury; who are to take the whole together and say whether the result of . .
Approved – Slim v Daily Telegraph Ltd CA 1968
Courts to Settle upon a single meaning if disputed
The ‘single meaning’ rule adopted in the law of defamation is in one sense highly artificial, given the range of meanings the impugned words sometimes bear. The law of defamation ‘has passed beyond redemption by the courts’. Where in a libel action . .
Cited by:
Cited – Jameel and Another v Times Newspapers Limited CA 21-Jul-2004
The defendant had published a newspaper article linking the claimant to terrorist activity. The defendants argued that no full accusation was made, but only that the claimant was under investigation for such behaviour, and that the article had . .
Cited – Alan Kenneth McKenzie Clark v Associated Newspapers Ltd PatC 21-Jan-1998
The claimant was a member of Parliament and an author. The defendant published a column which was said to give the impression that the claimant had written it. It was a parody. The claim was in passing off.
Held: The first issue was whether a . .
Cited – George Galloway MP v Telegraph Group Ltd QBD 2-Dec-2004
The claimant MP alleged defamation in articles by the defendant newspaper. They claimed to have found papers in Iraqi government offices after the invasion of Iraq which implicated the claimant. The claimant said the allegations were grossly . .
Cited – Mccann v Scottish Media Newspapers Ltd SCS 18-Feb-1999
Three articles which appeared in one edition of a newspaper had to be read together and treated as ‘constituting a whole’ for the purposes of determining meaning, where the first ended with a cross-reference to the second, and the second ended with . .
Cited – Charman v Orion Publishing Group Ltd and others QBD 14-Oct-2005
The court decided the issue of what meaning the words complained of would have been understood to bear. The ordinary reader of an article may well not think in legalistic terms such as ‘strong grounds to suspect’ or ‘reasonable grounds to suspect’ . .
Cited – Curistan v Times Newspapers Ltd CA 30-Apr-2008
The court considered the availability of qualified privilege for reporting of statements made in parliament and the actionable meaning of the article, which comprised in part those statements and in part other factual material representing the . .
Cited – Jeynes v News Magazines Ltd and Another CA 31-Jan-2008
Whether Statement defamatory at common law
The claimant appealed against a striking out of her claim for defamation on finding that the words did not have the defamatory meaning complained of, namely that she was transgendered or transsexual.
Held: The appeal failed.
Sir Anthony . .
Cited – Ajinomoto Sweeteners Europe Sas v Asda Stores Ltd QBD 15-Jul-2009
ajinomoto_asdaQBD2009
The claimant said that the defendant’s characterisation of its own products as ‘Good for You’ by reference to a description saying that it did not include the claimant’s product as a component, was a malicious falsehood. The defendant sold other . .
Cited – Budu v The British Broadcasting Corporation QBD 23-Mar-2010
budu_bbcQBD2010
The defendant sought to strike out the claimant’s action in defamation. It had reported that the police had withdrawn an employment offer to claimant after doubting his immigration status.
Held: The claims should be struck out. The articles . .
Cited – Dee v Telegraph Media Group Ltd QBD 28-Apr-2010
The newspaper sought summary judgment in its defence of the defamation claim. The article labelled the claimant as the world’s worst professional tennis player. The paper said he had no prospect of succeeding once the second article in the same . .
Cited – Kaschke v Osler QBD 13-May-2010
kschke_ostlerQBD10
The claimant sued in defamation as regards the defendant’s comments in his internet blog on her historical left wing political connections. She complained that they made a connection with terrorist activities. The defendant said that the article was . .
Cited – Ajinomoto Sweeteners Europe Sas v Asda Stores Ltd CA 2-Jun-2010
The claimant sold a sweetener ingredient. The defendant shop advertised its own health foods range with the label ‘no hidden nasties’ and in a situation which, the claimant said, suggested that its ingredient was a ‘nasty’, and it claimed under . .
Cited – Kaschke v Gray and Another QBD 23-Jul-2010
The claimant sought damages in defamation saying that the defendants had published a web page which falsely associated her with a terrorist gang in the 1970s. The defendants now sought a strike out of her claim as an abuse saying that a similar . .
Cited – Lewis v Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis and Others (Rev 1) QBD 31-Mar-2011
lewis_cpmQBD11
The defendant sought a ruling on the meaning of the words but using section 69(4) of the 1981 Act. The claimant solicitor was acting in complaints as to the unlawful interception of celebrity voicemails by agents of the press. There had been debate . .
Cited – Caplin v Associated Newspapers Ltd QBD 20-Jun-2011
The defendant sought clarification through the court as to the meanings inherent in the words complained of.
Held: The application failed. ‘I do not consider the ordinary reasonable reader would be perverse to conclude that the suspicions . .
Cited – Hamaizia and Another v The Commissioner of Police for The Metropolis QBD 21-Oct-2014
The two claimants, each convicted of serious offences of false imprisonment and violent assault, complained of a press release issued by the defendant which, they said accused them of involvement in a murder.
Held: The words complained of did . .
Cited – Economou v De Freitas QBD 27-Jul-2016
Failed action for defamation on rape allegations
The claimant had been accused by the defendant’s daughter of rape. He was never charged but sought to prosecute her alleging intent to pervert the course of justice. She later killed herself. The defendant sought to have the inquest extended to . .
Cited – NT 1 and NT 2 v Google Llc QBD 13-Apr-2018
Right to be Forgotten is not absolute
The two claimants separately had criminal convictions from years before. They objected to the defendant indexing third party web pages which included personal data in the form of information about those convictions, which were now spent. The claims . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Defamation
Leading Case
Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.78988
