Defamatory words - Words capable of defamatory meaning

Dell'Olio v Associated Newspapers Ltd: Queen's Bench Division (Mr Justice Tugendhat): 20 December 2011

The claimant issued proceedings against the defendant company for libel. The words complained of were published by the defendant in an article in the Daily Mail in a double page spread and online. The article had a heading 'RETURN OF THE MAN-EATER' and a sub-heading 'A conveniently leaked story, staged photos and two women at war over a much older man. It can only mean [the claimant has] got her claws into ANOTHER high-profile millionaire'. The claimant complained about words in the article. She alleged that, 'in their natural and ordinary meaning the words complained of meant and were understood to mean that the claimant was, or was reasonably suspected of being, a serial gold-digger who cynically seeks out relationships with men not for genuine emotional reasons but because they are millionaires and therefore capable of funding her conspicuously lavish and ostentatious lifestyle'. The defendant applied for a ruling that the words complained of were not capable of bearing the meaning attributed to them by the claimant in her particulars of claim, nor any other meaning defamatory of her.

The defendant contended that the phrase 'gold-digger' did not appear in the article, and that article contained no reference to the claimant acting 'cynically' or 'not for genuine emotional reasons'. It further submitted that the phrase 'man-eater' did not itself convey the meaning attributed to the words complained of, and the text of the article made clear that she was not alleged to be the hunter, but, if the metaphor was to be used, she was portrayed as the prey. The article might be regarded as unflattering, or even insulting, but that was not enough for the claimant to succeed. The application would be allowed.

The question was whether the words complained of had been capable of substantially affecting in an adverse manner the attitude of other people towards the claimant, whether in the meaning advanced by the claimant, or in some other meaning (see [27] of the judgment).

In the instant case, the title to the words complained of had been unflattering and even insulting, but that had not been the same as being defamatory. The references to lifestyle, money and wealth in the words complained of, insulting as they might have been, had not elevated the matter to the level of seriousness required to overcome the threshold of seriousness required if a publication was to be capable of being defamatory. The words complained of had not been capable of bearing the meaning which had been attributed to them by the claimant in her particulars of claim, or any other defamatory meaning of which she might have complained (see [26], [32], [35] of the judgment).

Accordingly the claim would be dismissed (see [35] of the judgment); William Bennett (instructed by Collyer Bristow) for the claimant; Mark Warby QC (instructed by Reynolds Porter Chamberlain) for the defendant.