The appellant was respondent in a defamation action brought by Mr Venables. He appealed an interlocutory order striking out an alternative meaning proposed by the defendant for some of the words complained of.
Held: It was for the judge to settle the range of potential meanings. The words however clearly bore the meaning alleged by the claimant and could not reasonably be read to refer to a lower allegation of misbehaviour than dishonesty. Appeal dismissed.
Judges:
Lord Justice Auld, Sir Christopher Slade
Citations:
[1997] EWCA Civ 2687
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Mapp v News Group Newspapers Limited; Gillan v News Group Newspapers Limited and similar CA 27-Feb-1997
The judge is to consider the range of meanings of words and decide if they are capable of having a defamatory meaning. Meaning is not a job for the jury: ‘In my judgment, the proper role for the judge, when adjudicating a question under Ord.82,r.3A, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Defamation
Updated: 10 November 2022; Ref: scu.143086
