Healys' defamation solicitors in London and Brighton review the application of a professional sportsman claiming defamation and libel against a national newspaper.
Johnson v MGN Limited [2009] EWCH 1481 (QB)
In this case the Claimant, professional footballer, Glen Johnson, issued a claim in defamation, more particularly libel, in respect of an article published in The People newspaper.
At the time the article was published the Claimant played for Portsmouth Football Club and was involved in negotiations in extending his contract with Portsmouth. The Claimant claimed the article carried two meanings; firstly that the Claimant had lied about the reason he had missed a football match; and secondly that by innuendo meant that he had breached Premier League Rules prohibiting unauthorised approaches by a player to another football club (Liverpool) during his contract.
The article in question, published in December 2008, was a lead story on the back page of the newspaper with the headlines "Exclusive" and "BENITEZ IN 9M SWOOP FOR POMPEY STAR".
The article said, "…Benitez has agreed a deal to buy the Portsmouth right-back… Johnson who did not play over Christmas because of a knee injury has been given a tour of the club's Melwood training ground…" and "…Johnson missed the Boxing Day 4-1 home thrashing by West Ham reportedly through injury, but his appearance on Merseyside will fuel suspicions that a deal is already done".
The article failed to comment on whether Liverpool had obtained the prior consent of Portsmouth before approaching the Claimant with a view to negotiating a transfer.
The Defendant in this case made an application to court for a ruling, under a particular court rule (CPR 53 PD 4.1), to the effect that the words in the article complained of were not capable of bearing the meanings the Claimant had pleaded. The Judge explained how the court has this jurisdiction since these issues are of key importance in defamation proceedings, not only for the purpose of assessing the degree of damage to the Claimant's reputation but also for the purpose of evaluating any defences that may be raised. The Defendant argued that the meanings the Claimant alleged were ‘fanciful' and that ‘no reasonable reader (even allowing for knowledge of the relevant rules) could possibly come to either of the conclusions the Claimant alleged on a fair reading of the article'. Therefore the issue the Court had to consider in this application was whether the words were capable of bearing the pleaded meanings?
Justice Eady dismissed the Defendant's application on the basis that the allegations could cause considerable damage to a player's reputation. As to the natural and ordinary meaning he held the article was ambiguous and allowance should therefore be made in favour of the Claimant. He held that the words were capable of bearing some defamatory meaning. He did however acknowledge that the ‘relevant class of readers who would have the relevant facts at their tips' would be very small indeed but nevertheless decided that the benefit of the doubt should be given to the Claimant at that stage.
This Judgment highlights the danger of attempting to strike out meanings where the words complained of are ambiguous. The judicial exercise is known to be one of pre-empting perversity; that is to say, the Judge should only exclude a pleaded meaning if it is satisfied that a jury would actually be perverse to uphold it. The decision to make such an application under CPP 53 PD 4.1 should not therefore be taken lightly.
Healys' libel and defamation solicitors in London and Brighton
At Healys we pride ourselves on being a full-service law firm. For over 25 years our committed and experienced team of solicitors has provided expert commercial legal advice to businesses and individuals who appreciate our practical, commercial and creative approach to legal solutions.
All our lawyers have a high degree of technical ability and provide an excellent service from our offices in London and Brighton, and we are committed to providing clients with commercial, pragmatic and relevant legal advice.
If you wish to speak to us regarding, any aspect of defamation or libel claims, please contact Nicholas Taylor on his direct line; 01273 669 128 or email him on nicholas.taylor@healys.com
