Daniel Peter Simpson v Mgn Ltd (Defendant/Intended Part 20 Claimant) Stephanie Ward (Intended Part 20 Defendant)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Warby |
| Judgment Date | 21 January 2015 |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] EWHC 77 (QB) |
| Docket Number | Case No: HQ13D05513 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Date | 21 January 2015 |
[2015] EWHC 77 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Mr Justice Warby
Case No: HQ13D05513
and
Manuel Barca QC and Aidan Eardley (instructed by Lewis Silkin LLP) for the Claimant
Adam Wolanski (instructed by Simons Muirhead and Burton) for the Defendant/Intended Part 20 Claimant
The Intended Part 20 Defendant did not appear and was not represented.
Hearing date: 19 January 2015
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.
The claimant is a Premier League footballer. He sues the defendant for libel in articles published in the Daily Mirror for 16 November 2012, and on the defendant's website www.mirror.co.uk from that date onwards.
The nature of the hard copy article is indicated by the text of the taster that appears under the masthead on the front page, and the captions to the photographs either side of the taster. The text is: "EXCLUSIVE: PREM STAR'S PREGNANT GIRLFRIEND … 'Tulisa is just a home-wrecker.. I'm devastated.'" One of the captions reads: "FAMILY Danny, partner Stephanie Ward and baby". The photograph shows the parents in a loving pose with their daughter in Ms Ward's arms. The other caption reads: "TOGETHER Tulisa at shops with Toon star Danny Simpson".
The Defence denies that the words complained of were defamatory of the claimant, and denies that they bore the meanings complained of, but pleads a defence of justification. The meaning which the defendant contends is true (the Lucas-Box meaning) is different from the meanings complained of by the claimant.
The following applications are before the court.
i) The claimant applies for an order that the court try as preliminary issues the meaning of the words complained of, and whether they are defamatory of the claimant, and for the immediate trial of those issues. The defendant has consented to that application, but disputes the claimant's meaning.
ii) If the court upon the trial of those issues upholds the defamatory meaning complained of by the claimant, the claimant seeks an order striking out of the defence of justification as disclosing no reasonable grounds for defending the claim.
iii) The defendant applies for permission to amend its Defence. The draft amendments would assert the truth of the meaning complained of by the claimant, modify the defendant's Lucas-Box meaning, and add to the particulars of justification. The claimant's case is that even with the proposed amendments the Defence would be liable to be struck out, so the amendment application should be refused.
iv) The defendant applies for permission to commence an additional claim against Stephanie Ward for a contribution pursuant to s 1(1) of the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 and CPR 20.7. This is on the basis that in publishing the article complained of the defendant relied on what it was told by Ms Ward so that, if the defendant is liable, Ms Ward is jointly liable with it. This application is not opposed, but nor is it consented to by Ms Ward.
Meaning
The words complained of
I shall focus on the hard copy publication, as neither side suggested that there was any relevant distinction between this and the online version. The words complained of include those that appeared on the front page and are set out in paragraph 2 above. They directed the reader to the following article, which appeared as a splash across two pages, taking up about a third of page 6 and the whole of page 7 (paragraph numbers are added for ease of reference):
"SHE'S TU CRUEL
Newcastle Utd star's pregnant girlfriend calls singer a 'homewrecker'
Steph says it is over and she doesn't want anything to do with him
[1] The pregnant girlfriend of Newcastle United star Danny Simpson yesterday branded Tulisa a "homewrecker".
[2] We exclusively revealed yesterday how the footballer, 25 and the X Factor judge were spotted having drinks, dinner and visiting a hotel.
[3] But devastated Stephanie Ward, 24, said he was supposed to be Christmas shopping with her and their 16-month-old daughter Skye-Lorena at the time.
[4] Tulisa and Danny were also spotted smiling as they left Tesco near his £1 million hone the next day.
[5] And yesterday morning they emerged from his pad as he whisked her to the airport in his £130,000 Bentley.
[6] Distraught Stephanie, who is four months pregnant with their second child, said: "He's not famous and nobody knows who he is, but Tulisa is obviously a homewrecker.
[7] "She knows about me and the baby because when she called him to let him know the story was breaking, he told me she said to him, 'I'm just letting you know now there's a story breaking as I know you've got a baby on the way and I know you won't want your girlfriend to see it'. It's fair enough if a girl doesn't know about it, but the fact that she knows I've got a baby on the way and another child is bad."
[8] They have been together for six years and she says she gave up her law career for him.
[9] On Tuesday, she visited her mum in Manchester with her daughter.
[10] She claimed Danny was supposed to visit her so they could go Christmas shopping.
[11] But he apparently told her he could not go because he had training in Newcastle. It turned out though he was in Manchester — with Tulisa, 24.
[12] Stephanie said the final insult came when her friend spotted Danny and the singer at Tesco near the luxury home she shares with him in Newcastle on Wednesday.
DISTRAUGHT
[13] Last night Stephanie insisted their relationship was over after the revelations.
[14] She said: "I don't want anything more to do with him now. He's made me feel like absolute s***."
[15] She first heard about Danny's meeting with Tulisa when he called her on Wednesday evening.
[16] Stephanie said: "Danny said that Tulisa had called him to tell him that a story about the two of them was going to appear in the paper, saying they'd been seen out together. He was upset and saying sorry and saying it was nothing, that he just went for food with her and his friends."
[17] But she claimed his story began to unravel when she grilled him. "I asked if he had messaged her and if he speaks to her on the phone," she said. "He admitted he has been texting her.
[18] "I said it's obviously more than just food with friends, and he told me they got on well.
[19] "So I asked if he'd slept with her but he said no it was just food.
[20] "I was hysterical. I asked him, 'Do you want to sleep or you have slept with her, are you telling me that you cheated on me?"'
[21] As a pregnant mum, she was horrified that she found herself competing with Tulisa.
[22] She said: "I told him I cannot compete with one of the most high-profile women in the media, but I'm loyal and I've loved you for six years and I'm the mother of your children and I've been the best girlfriend I can be.
[23] "He kept just saying, 'I'm sorry'. I have a law degree and I gave up my career as a solicitor to have children with him."
[24] Danny is believed to have bedded Natasha Giggs, Ryan Giggs' sister-in-law, when he played for Manchester United and has also been seen on nights out with Big Brother glamour model Imogen Thomas and Emmerdale star Roxanne Pallett.
[25] Tulisa smiled for stunned shoppers as she left the Tesco store in Kingston Park in Newcastle on Wednesday night, with Simpson by her side.
[26] They walked out of the store side by side, with Danny carrying two bags of shopping.
[27] Tulisa, who has just released a new album, smiled as a number of fans spotted her and started taking pictures.
[28] The pair were up at 6.30am the next day and emerged at 7.50am from his home in a smart area on the outskirts of Newcastle, to make a dash to the city's airport where she was due to catch a plane to London. But the flight was cancelled due to fog at Heathrow.
[29] So the United star drove her back to his place in his Bentley, pulling her designer Louis Vuitton luggage behind him.
[30] The pair then played a cat-and-mouse game with photographers.
[31] When Danny left for training around 9.30am, it was thought Tulisa was with him. But she waited behind at his home before getting a taxi back to the airport for the 12.15 BA flight to London.
[32] Before she boarded, we asked if our exclusive on her friendship had caught her by surprise.
[33] She flashed a beaming smile and joked: "I am not going to tell you that now am I?"
[34] She chatted with BA staff about the "nightmare" trying to get to London on the earlier flight before making her way through customs, dressed in white plimsoles, skinny blue jeans, designer sunglasses and a white hooded top.
MYSTERIOUS
[35] Before boarding, she said: "I am not going to talk about it. I am hardly going to sell a story on myself am I?" But she added intriguingly: "I will say something when I am ready."
The article on pages 6–7 was accompanied by four photographs with captions:
i) [Caption, beneath a photograph similar to the one that appeared on the front page] FAMILY Stephanie and Danny with baby
ii) [Caption, beneath a photograph of the Claimant with Miss Contostavlos in the Claimant's car] GETAWAY Leaving Tesco in Danny's Bentley
iii) [Caption, beside a photograph of the Claimant with Miss Contostavlos] SMILING Tulisa at Tesco with Danny
iv) [Caption, beside a photograph of the Claimant with Miss Contostavlos] HOODED Pair at airport yesterday
The rival meanings
The meanings which the claimant attributes to the words complained of in each version of the article are that:
"(1) by entering a romantic relationship with the celebrity Tulisa Contostavlos, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carol Yvonne Carruthers v Associated Newspapers Ltd
...is not enough to say that by some person or another the words might be understood in a defamatory sense’.” v) In Simpson v MGN Limited [2015] EWHC 77 (QB) [10], Warby J noted the following in relation to the third and sixth Jeynes principles. “As principle (3) indicates, the exercise is on......
-
Mir Shakil-ur-rahman v Ary Network Ltd and Another
...statements help unpack the content of this briefly-stated but key principle: (1) The exercise is one of impression ( per Warby J in Simpson v. MGN Limited [2015] EWHC 77 (QB). Judges should have regard to the impression the words have made on themselves in considering what impact it would ......
-
Shakeel Begg v British Broadcasting Corporation
...Gillick v Brook Advisory Centres cited by the CA at [2001] EWCA Civ 1263 at [7]). The exercise is one of impression ( per Warby J in Simpson v. MGN Limited [2015] EWHC 77 (QB)). (2) The meaning of words is often a matter of subtlety, going well-beyond what they literally say ( per Warby J......
-
Jack Monroe v Katie Hopkins
...It would obviously be wrong for the court, in the position of the reasonable reader, to select the most defamatory meaning available: Simpson v MGN Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 772 [2016] EMLR 26 [15] (Laws LJ). Equally, the final words of this principle do not indicate that the reasonable reader wo......