Ajinomoto Sweeteners Europe SAS v Asda Stores Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Sedley,Lord Justice Rimer,Sir Scott Baker |
| Judgment Date | 02 June 2010 |
| Neutral Citation | [2010] EWCA Civ 609 |
| Docket Number | Case No: A2/2009/1683 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 02 June 2010 |
[2010] EWCA Civ 609
[2009] EWCA 1717 (QB)
Mr Justice Tugendhat
Before : Lord Justice Sedley
Lord Justice Rimer
and
Sir Scott Baker
Case No: A2/2009/1683
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Mr James Price QC and Mr Matthew Nicklin (instructed by CMS Cameron McKenna Llp) for the Appellant
Mr Andrew Caldecott QC and Mr Manuel Barca (instructed by Kempner Robinson Llp) for the Respondent
Hearing dates: 11 and 12 May 2010
Lord Justice Sedley:
In defamation cases, both civil and criminal, there has for centuries been a rule that the question libel or no libel is to be answered in respect of a single meaning. This is unproblematical where there is only one thing that the words can sensibly mean, but it can be highly problematical where reasonable people might put more than one construction on the words read in their proper context. By the early 17th century, in order to discourage suits and prosecutions (the latter almost all private and open to abuse – hence the concomitant development of the action for malicious prosecution), the courts had decided that such words were always to be construed in the most inoffensive sense reasonably possible – in mitiori sensu: see Mitchell v Brown 3 Inst. 167. This practice – it can hardly be dignified as a doctrine – was superseded after the Restoration by a rule that the impugned words were to be understood “according to the general and natural meaning, and agreeable to the common understanding of all men” ( Townshend v Hughes (1676) 2 Mod. 159); or, as more vividly put by Levinz J in Naben v Miecock (1683) Skin. 183, “in their natural, genuine and usual sense and common understanding, and not according to the witty construction of lawyers, but according to the apprehension of the bystanders”.
This, however, was another version of the single meaning rule. It still declined to recognise that two or more bystanders can perfectly reasonably make different sense of the same words. It simply shifted the preferred meaning to the middle ground. By virtue of Fox's Libel Act of 1792, the function of deciding meaning passed to the jury in both civil and criminal libel cases, but still subject to two things: that the judge must determine the outer limits of meaning, and that, within those limits, the jury's verdict of libel or no libel must relate to what they find to have been the meaning, not a meaning, of the words.
The fiction that there is a single reasonable reader, so that words, duly taken in context, have only one meaning, has remained embedded in the law of defamation. In his classic judgment in Slim v Daily Telegraph [1968] 2 QB 157, endorsed in Charleston v News Group Newspapers [1995] 2 AC 65, Diplock LJ said:
“… the argument between lawyers as to the meaning of words starts with the unexpressed major premise that any particular combination of words has one meaning which is not necessarily the same as that intended by him who published them or understood by any of those who read them but is capable of ascertainment as being the 'right' meaning by the adjudicator to whom the law confides the responsibility of determining it.
Where, as in the present case, words are published to the millions of readers of a popular newspaper, the chances are that if the words are reasonably capable of being understood as bearing more than one meaning, some readers will have understood them as bearing one of those meanings and some will have understood them as bearing others of those meanings. But none of this matters. What does matter is what the adjudicator at the trial thinks is the one and only meaning that the readers as reasonable men should have collectively understood the words to bear. That is 'the natural and ordinary meaning' of words in an action for libel.
Juries, in theory, must be unanimous upon every issue on which they have to adjudicate; and since the damages that they award must depend upon the defamatory meaning that they attribute to the words, they must all agree upon a single meaning as being the 'right' meaning. And so the unexpressed major premise, that any particular combination of words can bear but a single 'natural and ordinary meaning' which is 'right,' survived the transfer from judge to jury of the function of adjudicating upon the meaning of words in civil actions for libel.”
In the circumstances it is surprising – it might even be thought gratifying—that neither of the very experienced leading counsel appearing in the present appeal could recollect a case in which a judge had had difficulty in directing a jury in accordance with the single meaning rule, or in which a jury had evinced difficulty in applying it.
This case
Aspartame is a sugar substitute which has attracted a measure of controversy but is a lawful food additive. The claimant is the European limb of one of the world's major producers and suppliers of it.
The defendant is a large supermarket chain, now a subsidiary of Walmart, which sells its own brand of health foods. Some of these carry a flower design, on one petal of which is written “No hidden nasties”, together with a legend typically reading “No artificial colours or flavours and no aspartame”.
Three possible meanings were ascribed to this packaging by the claimant:
A: That aspartame is harmful or unhealthy.
B: That there is a risk that aspartame is harmful or unhealthy.
C: That aspartame is to be avoided.
The defendant averred that it meant
D: That these foods were for customers who found aspartame objectionable.
In a meticulously reasoned judgment on the preliminary issue of meaning ( [2009] EWHC 1717 (QB); [2010] 1 QB 204) Tugendhat J rejected meaning A outright. It accordingly leaves the stage. He found that a substantial number of consumers would derive meaning B from the packaging. He also found that a substantial number would derive meaning D from it. Meaning C, he found, added nothing to meaning B, and it too accordingly leaves the stage.
The judge then applied to meanings B and D the single meaning rule. This he took to require that “The court should not select one bad meaning where other non-defamatory meanings are available”. His reasoning rested on article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and on the particular regard for it enjoined by s.12(4) of the Human Rights Act 1998. He accordingly took the single meaning to be D. On this finding, if it is to stand, the claimant loses.
So far I have deliberately said nothing about the cause of action. If it had been libel, James Price QC, for the claimant, would have contended that the judge had not only reverted to the old 'mitiori sensu' criterion rather than arrive at the informed preference which the law now requires but, in founding his choice on article 10, had accorded free expression inappropriate priority over the property right contained in article 1 of the First Protocol. But his principal case rests on the fact that this was not a libel action at all but a claim for malicious falsehood, a tort in which, he contends, the single meaning rule does not operate.
For the defendant, Andrew Caldecott QC accepts that no authority explicitly requires us to apply the single meaning rule to a malicious falsehood claim, but he contends, first, that no authority prevents it (which Mr Price for his part accepts) and, secondly, that there are solid jurisprudential reasons for maintaining parity of legal reasoning between the two classes of claim.
Does the single meaning rule apply to malicious falsehood?
The appellant's case
Mr Price's argument starts from the intellectual high ground of Diplock LJ's judgment in Slim. Even in libel the rule is an anomaly, explained but no longer excused by either history or practice. If we were starting from scratch, Mr Price suggests, nobody would try to justify such a rule, whether for judges sitting alone or for judges directing juries. The judge would, as he or she now does, eliminate unreasonable meanings as a matter of law and leave the rest to the jury. If they find that a significant segment of reasonable readers would think the words defamatory of the claimant, then it should be sufficient for a verdict of libel that a meaning of the words will have damaged the claimant's reputation. The damages will then reflect the inferred extent of the libel. Exactly the same would apply, but with narrative reasons, to a judge sitting alone.
Had Tugendhat J done that here, his finding that the packaging conveyed both meaning B and meaning D would have been as far as he was required to go. Insofar as it was then found at trial that meaning B would have adversely influenced customers – a finding which would give credit, so to speak, for the comparable reasonableness of meaning D – but no further, and subject to proof of malice and falsity, the claim would be made out.
To the argument that it would be mistaken in principle to draw such a line between libel and malicious falsehood, Mr Price replies that these are torts of different kinds: libel is an injury to reputation and thus a personal tort; malicious falsehood is an injury to property and thus an economic tort. In at least one of the other economic torts, the tort of passing off, Lightman J in Clark v Associated Newspapers [1998] 1 WLR 1558 held that it was enough to establish that one of the possible reasonable meanings of the publication would mislead a substantial number of people; but he also held that a single meaning was required for the statutory tort of false attribution...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peter Cruddas v Jonathan Calvert and Others
...relation to meaning 1. 95 In relation to the tort of malicious falsehood, the single meaning rule does not apply: see Ajinomoto Sweeteners Europe SAS v Asda Stores Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 609; [2011] QB 497. In that case Ajinomoto made a claim for malicious falsehood, in respect of words used......
-
Lait v Evening Standard Ltd
...will not dwell upon, the criticisms of the rule canvassed in the context of the tort of malicious falsehood in Ajinomoto v Asda Stores [2011] 2 WLR 91. I acknowledge also that a different approach is taken in what has become known as " Reynolds media privilege" after Reynolds v Times Newspa......
-
Comic Enterprises Ltd v Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation
...marks of the kind that there was once thought to be, but there is no longer, in the law of malicious falsehood: see Ajinomoto Sweeteners Europe SAS v Asda Stores Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 609; [2010] F.S.R. 30. He relied on two decisions of General Court: Icebreaker Ltd v Office for Harmonisati......
-
Peter Cruddas v Jonathan Calvert and Others
...2013: "In a libel claim the court will determine the single meaning borne by the published words. As explained by the Court of Appeal in Ajinomoto v ASDA [2011] QB 497, the single meaning rule has no application in malicious falsehood. If, for the sake of argument, the Court were to accept ......
-
Management and Enforcement
..., [1966] S.C.R. 419, on T Act , above note 37, s. 7(a), and the common law; Ajinomoto Sweeteners Europe SAS v. ASDA Stores Ltd. , [2010] EWCA Civ 609. As to s. 7(a), see M & I Door Systems Ltd. v. Indoco Industrial Door Co. (1989), 25 C.P.R. (3d) 477 (Fed. T.D.); Safematic Inc. v. Sensodec ......