An initial stage in most defamation cases is to establish the natural and ordinary meaning of the words complained of. The High Court’s decision in El-Saeiti v The Islamic Centre (Manchester) and others [2025] EWHC 266 (KB) is an example of a recent hearing where the Court had to decide such a natural and ordinary meaning. This case revolves around Mohammed Saeed El-Saeiti, a former Imam at the Didsbury Mosque, and his libel claims against his former employer, The Islamic Centre (Manchester), and one of its trustees, Fawzi Mohammed Haffar.
Background of the case
The catalyst for this case was the publication of statements related to the Manchester Arena bombing inquiry led by Sir John Saunders. The inquiry investigated the circumstances surrounding the 2017 bombing, which tragically claimed 22 lives. The BBC aired several broadcasts quoting Mr. Haffar accusing Mr. El-Saeiti of dishonesty in his evidence to the inquiry, referring to him as a “liar”.
Mr. El-Saeiti claimed that these statements were defamatory and damaged his reputation, suggesting he committed perjury. The defendants argued that the meaning of their comments was not defamatory at law.
Legal issues addressed
Mr Justice Sheldon presided over the preliminary issues trial, which focused on:
- The natural and ordinary meaning of the statements;
- Whether the statements were fact or opinion; and
- Whether the statements were defamatory at common law.
Key findings of the Court
1. First statement (BBC broadcasts):
The broadcasts included Mr. Haffar stating that Mr. El-Saeiti was a “liar” regarding his inquiry testimony. The Court found that the natural and ordinary meaning of the broadcasts, when viewed as a whole, was that despite Mr. Haffar’s protests, the inquiry found Mr. El-Saeiti’s evidence to be truthful. This was a statement of fact but not defamatory since it did not lower Mr. El-Saeiti in the eyes of right-thinking people.
2. Second statement (press release):
A press release from Didsbury Mosque stated that if Mr. El-Saeiti had been cross-examined, his evidence would have been found lacking in credibility. The Court concluded that the natural and ordinary meaning was that, if Mr. El-Saeiti had been cross-examined, he would have been found to have knowingly given false evidence. This was deemed an opinion (not a fact) and was considered defamatory at common law because it implied dishonesty.
Implications of the judgment
This judgment highlights the delicate balance between free speech, fair comment, and the protection of individual reputations. It underscores the importance of context in defamation cases and demonstrates the Court’s rigorous approach in distinguishing between fact and opinion.
For public figures and organisations, the case reinforces the need for careful communication, especially when addressing matters of public interest. Defendants should be cautious in their wording to avoid unintended defamatory implications.
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