In defamation cases, the court will determine the single natural and ordinary meaning for the words in question by choosing one meaning that the hypothetical reasonable reader would take from the publication – the single meaning rule. The court will consider the context of the words, including the purpose of the writing and the context of the entire document. Not all defamatory meanings are equal; some allegations are much more serious than others. The court often refers to the Chase levels of meaning (derived from the case of Chase v Newsgroup Newspapers Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 1772):-
- Level 1
Guilt/liability: a direct accusation that the claimant has committed the wrongdoing in question. For example, ‘X stole money from the company’. - Level 2
Reasonable grounds to suspect: an allegation that there are reasonable grounds to suspect the claimant might have committed the act. For example, ‘X is linked to the theft’. - Level 3
Grounds to investigate: a lesser allegation that there are grounds to investigate whether the claimant may have done something wrong. For example, ‘police are looking into X’s connection to the theft’.
The Chase level is relevant to the defendant in proving the defences that he/she is going to rely upon. For example, if the defendant has been found to publish a level 1 meaning, he/she must prove the claimant’s actual guilt to succeed on a truth defence, which is a very high bar. On the contrary, if the meaning is only a level 3 meaning, the defendant may defend it by proving that there were grounds to investigate, which is a much lower bar compared to proving actual guilt.
Therefore, the claimant tends to argue for the highest level of meaning whilst the defendant often argues for the lowest level of meaning. If the meaning does not fit neatly into the levels, the court has the discretion to determine the degree of seriousness. It can be somewhere between level 1 and level 2 or level 2 and level 3. Nicklin J in the case of Brown v Bower [2017] EWHC 2637 (QB) stated that whilst the Chase levels reflect ‘the almost infinite capacity for subtle differences in meaning, they are not a straitjacket forcing the court to select one of these prescribed levels of meaning, but they are a helpful shorthand’.
The Chase level is also relevant to the court in determining the amount of damages awarded. More serious allegations will result in higher payouts.
How can we help?
Ronny Tang is an Associate in our expert Dispute Resolution team, specialising in defamation claims, contentious probate and inheritance claims, Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 claims, Equality Act 2010 claims and Protection From Harassment 1997 claims.
If you need any advice concerning the subject discussed in this article, please do not hesitate to contact Ronny or another member of the team in Derby, Leicester, or Nottingham on 0800 024 1976 or via our online enquiry form.
Contact us