It is a common occurrence for photographs and headlines accompanying articles written in the press to not accurately convey what the article was about. In such circumstances, is it possible to found an action in defamation based on a photograph or headline alone? This issue was before the Court in a recent case of Vince v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2024] EWHC 1806 (KB).
Background
Dale Vince, a prominent green energy industrialist and environmental activist, filed a defamation claim against the Daily Mail following the publication of an article on 9 June 2023. The article was titled “Labour repays £100,000 to ‘sex harassment’ donor” and included photographs and captions that allegedly caused harm to Vince’s reputation.
The crux of Vince’s complaint was the juxtaposition of his image with the headline and captions, which he claimed led readers to believe he was involved in the sexual harassment scandal, despite the text of the article clarifying that he was not the accused party.
The claim
There are two ways of pleading a defamation claim: based on the natural and ordinary meaning; and/or based on an innuendo meaning. An innuendo meaning is some other meaning other than the natural and ordinary meaning that the hypothetical reasonable reader would formulate in their own mind based on some extrinsic facts likely to be known to those readers.
Vince’s claim was not based on the natural and ordinary meaning of the words in the article but on an innuendo. He argued that a substantial number of readers would only read the headline, photographs, and captions, without the full context provided by the article’s text, leading them to mistakenly associate him with the sexual harassment allegations. He alleged that these were the extrinsic facts that applied in this case.
Legal arguments
The defendant, Associated Newspapers Limited, sought to strike out the claim on the grounds that:
- The article in context: They argued (and Vince accepted) that when read as a whole, the article did not defame Vince.
- Principle from charleston: Citing the principle from the case Charleston v News Group Newspapers Ltd [1995] 2 AC 65, they asserted that the entire article should be considered, not just isolated parts like headlines or captions.
- Innuendo claim: The defendant contended that the extrinsic facts Vince relied on to establish his innuendo claim were opinions about media consumption habits and not provable facts.
Court’s decision
The Court was tasked with determining whether Vince’s claim had a reasonable ground to proceed or whether the claim should be struck out as having no chance of success.
His Honour Judge Lewis stated that he did not see that there was anything in the Charleston judgment that would exclude the principle set out in that case applying to innuendo meanings as well as natural and ordinary meanings. The Court therefore found that:
- Reading the entire article: The ordinary, reasonable reader is expected to read the article in its entirety before forming a defamatory impression.
- Extraneous facts and opinions: The extraneous facts Vince relied upon were deemed insufficient to establish an actionable innuendo.
As a result, the Court agreed with the defendant’s application to strike out the claim, concluding that it disclosed no reasonable grounds for proceeding.
Implications
This judgment reinforces the established legal principles that defamation claims must consider the entirety of the publication and that claims based on partial readings, such as just headlines or captions, are doomed to fail. The decision underscores the importance of context in defamation cases and the challenge of succeeding with an innuendo claim based on speculative reading habits.
It further reinforces that, where an innuendo meaning is pleaded in the case, it is essential that the extrinsic facts relied upon to support such a meaning must be pleaded and must be facts rather than statements of opinion.
How can we help?
Kevin Modiri is a Partner in our expert Dispute Resolution team, specialising in civil disputes, insolvency, inheritance disputes, data breach claims and defamation claims.
If you have any questions concerning the subjects discussed in this article, please do not hesitate to contact Kevin or another member of the team in Derby, Leicester, or Nottingham on 0800 024 1976 or via our online enquiry form.
Contact us