Building Register Ltd v (1) Mark Weston (First Defendant) (2) All Clean Ltd (Second Defendant)

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeMr Justice Dingemans
Judgment Date20 March 2014
Neutral Citation[2014] EWHC 784 (QB)
Docket NumberCase No: HQ12D04594
CourtQueen's Bench Division
Date20 March 2014

[2014] EWHC 784 (QB)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Before:

Mr Justice Dingemans

Case No: HQ12D04594

Between:
Building Register Limited
Claimant
and
(1) Mark Weston
First Defendant
(2) All Clean Limited
Second Defendant

Justin Rushbrooke QC (instructed by Hugh James Solicitors) for the Claimant

David Price QC (of David Price Solicitor & Advocates) for the Defendants

Hearing dates: 12 March 2014

Approved Judgment

I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.

Mr Justice Dingemans Mr Justice Dingemans

Introduction

1

This is the hearing of preliminary issues of: "a) the meaning borne by the words complained of, and; b) whether the allegations complained of are allegations of fact or expressions of opinion"; pursuant to the order of Master Eastman dated 19 July 2013.

2

This libel action is brought by the Claimant, Building Register Limited. The Claimant provides an online directory and managed data registration service under the name "the Building Register" for suppliers and contractors in the construction and cleaning industry who wish to have their details made available to potential customers.

3

The action is brought against the First Defendant, Mark Weston, and the Second Defendant, All Clean Limited. The First Defendant is the managing director of the Second Defendant. The Second Defendant is a commercial cleaning company based in Worcester, and is a former customer of the Claimant. The Defendants became dissatisfied with the way in which the contract with the Claimant had been concluded and renewed, and the services that the Defendants received.

4

The Defendants set up a website "BuildingRegistercomplaints.co.uk". It gave readers the opportunity to voice complaints regarding the service of the Claimant. The website was operational between 23 rd October and 6 th November 2012. Links to the website were emailed by the Defendants to about 70 customers of the Claimant.

The relevant publication

5

The relevant parts of the publication on the website, with the bold from the original publication, are set out below:

"My name is Mark Weston and I'm Managing Director of All Clean Ltd, a cleaning company specialising in after build cleans for the construction industry. Just over a year ago I was subjected to heavy sales pressure over the phone by this organisation, Building Register. They are a computer software company that claim to present your critical company information such as health and safety documentation in front of your potential customer in an easy to read format.

During the sales process they introduced me to their website and in order to gain more information I inadvertently clicked a tab which they then claimed was an electronic signature. As a result I had to part with £1600.00. Although I complained at the time about this they refused to budge on the fact that I had apparently placed an order. I was annoyed that I had been duped like this but I consoled myself with the thought that if half of the benefits they sold me came through, at least I would get my money back and it would be of some benefit.

Soon after parting with my cash things started to go wrong!

Firstly the national coverage I had been sold turned out to be regional, after a protracted argument they did give me national coverage. We then had very little help setting up our details, then all went quiet until the end of august 2012 when I had a call from my "new" account manager. I explained to her that I had never had an account manager, however she went onto explain that as I had not cancelled back in June I was liable for another year's subscription starting in September and as my first year had been discounted … it was going to cost me a further £2,150.00, a rise of £550 over the first year!

I asked her why they had a clause that if you didn't remember to cancel after 9 months you were liable for another 12 months. She said it was because in the past a number of organisations had sued them because their membership to the site had lapsed and yet they were still expecting the benefits! How bizarre is that! I told her that absolutely no benefit had come to my company over the past 9 months and I most certainly did not want to continue with them for another year. She said that I had benefited a great deal from the site and she sent me a list of companies that had clicked on my information.

I can prove that I have not done business with any of them, in fact not one of them has even been in contact for a quotation!

The upshot of all this is that Building Register are suing me for £2154.00 and I'll be putting in a counter claim for the original £1600 because I believe I was mis-sold their product in the first place. I will be calling on the Building Register staff I've dealt with over the phone to attend court so that I can cross examine them. I will also be asking why in their recording when you phone them they say they are putting you through to one of their six offices, is not true, I've established they don't have six offices and this is simply another example of their embellished sales tactics…

Building Register use these bullying tactics on small organisations such as mine, probably correctly assuming that most will buckle and pay money for no benefit…"

Procedural matters

6

The Claimant served Particulars of Claim pleading the natural and ordinary and inferential meaning of the words. The Claimant claimed general damages and special damages in respect of cancellations from other customers.

7

On the 18 th January 2013 a Defence was served, which it appears had been prepared by the First Defendant and which did not comply with the provisions of the Practice Direction for defamation claims relating to statements of case. The Defence suggested that the Defendants would justify the statements on the website.

8

By order dated the 18 th March 2013 Master Eastman ordered the Defendants to file and serve by 4pm on 12 th April 2013 an amended Defence verified by a statement of truth in accordance with CPR Part 22.1 which complied with paragraph 2.5 of the Practice Direction to CPR Part 53. Provision was made for service of a Reply and a further case management conference on 4 th June 2013.

9

On the 30 th April 2013 Master Eastman made an order, having read the Claimant's solicitors' letter dated 25 th April 2013 and the Defendants' email dated 29 th April 2013, that unless the Defendants comply with paragraph 2 of the order of 18 th March 2013 by 4pm on the 10 th May 2013 there should be judgment for the Claimant. An amended Defence, in substitution for the first Defence, was served on the 9 th May 2013.

10

The publication of the website was admitted but it was not admitted that the words were defamatory, or that the number of readers were substantial, or that all the recipients of the email would have read the words. It was also pleaded that the words on the website were true or substantially true. The meanings that the Defendants alleged to be true were set out. In the alternative the defence of honest comment was pleaded. It was pleaded that the Defendants would rely if necessary on section 5 and 6 of the Defamation Act 1952.

11

A Reply was served dated the 3 rd July 2013. In the Reply reference was made to legal proceedings in the Maidstone County Court between the Claimant and Second Defendant, in which the Judge had given judgment for the Claimant on its claim in the sum of £2846.15. Issues of res iudicata and issue estoppel were said to arise. A draft re-amended Defence has since been produced.

12

Various correspondence has taken place between the parties in which unsuccessful attempts have been made to agree the meaning of the words.

Relevant legal principles

13

There was much common ground in the submissions before me, and I am grateful to both Mr Rushbrooke QC and Mr Price QC for their assistance. It might be noted that this judgment is a ruling on the meaning borne by the words complained of, as opposed to a ruling on whether or not the words are capable of bearing defamatory or particular meanings. As such this judgment is to determine the actual meaning of the words, rather than delimiting the meanings which the words are capable of bearing.

14

When deciding the meaning of words, a judge is providing written reasons for his conclusion as to the meaning to be attributed to the words sued upon. A Judge should not fall into the trap of conducting an over elaborate analysis of the various passages relied on by the respective protagonists. The meaning is to be determined from the viewpoint of the layman, not by the techniques of a lawyer, see Waterson v Lloyd [2013] EWCA Civ 136; [2013] EMLR 17 at paragraph 53. The exercise has been described as one of ascertaining the broad impression made on the hypothetical reader by the words taken as a whole. The natural and ordinary meaning of words includes what the reasonable man will infer from the words, see Gatley on Libel and Slander, 12 th Edition, at 3.18. The Court is entitled to reach its own conclusions on meaning, and is not required to adopt meanings advanced by either party.

15

The applicable principles were summarised by Sir Anthony Clarke MR in Jeynes v News Magazines Limited [2008] EWCA Civ 130 at paragraph 14:

" The legal principles relevant to meaning … may be summarised in this way: (1) The governing principle is reasonableness. (2) The hypothetical reasonable reader is not naïve but he is not unduly suspicious. He can read between the lines. He can read in an implication more readily than a lawyer and may indulge in a certain amount of loose thinking but he must be treated as being a man who is not avid for scandal and someone who does not,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Building Register Ltd v Mark Weston and Another
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division
    • 17 d4 Julho d4 2014
    ...up by the defendants under the name " www.buildingregistercomplaints.co.uk". 2 The hearing follows a determination by Dingemans J ( [2014] EWHC 784 (QB)) as to the meaning of the words complained of. Dingemans J at [2]–[11] set out the history of the proceedings as follows: "2. This libel ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT