Dr Evelyne Godfrey v The Institute of Conservation
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Saini |
| Judgment Date | 21 February 2020 |
| Neutral Citation | [2020] EWHC 374 (QB) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Docket Number | Case No: QB-2019-004013 |
| Date | 21 February 2020 |
[2020] EWHC 374 (QB)
Mr Justice Saini
Case No: QB-2019-004013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
MEDIA AND COMMUNICATIONS LIST
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
The Claimant in person
David Glen (instructed by Pinsent Masons) for the Defendant
Hearing dates: 18 February 2020
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.
This judgment is divided into 5 parts as follows:
I. Overview – the parties 1–6
I. Overview: the parties
This is the trial of preliminary issues as to the meaning of certain publications, and as to whether those publications were statements of fact or opinion. The claim in defamation is brought by the Claimant (“Dr. Godfrey”) against the Defendant, the Institute of Conservation (“Icon”) in respect of two statements which were published on Icon's website ( https://icon.org.uk).
The statements, dated 20 November 2018 and 1 January 2019, respectively, concerned the outcome of disciplinary proceedings taken by Icon against Dr. Godfrey, and were published within the public “News” section of Icon's website.
Icon took such proceedings following complaints against Dr. Godfrey and invited her to participate in the disciplinary process under its rules. I understand that Dr. Godfrey declined to participate in the proceedings because she considered the complaints, and indeed the process itself, to be vexatious. Dr. Godfrey was in due course expelled from membership of Icon on 14 December 2018, and began this libel action on 11 November 2019.
Icon is a professional membership body and limited company whose aims are to raise awareness of the cultural, social and economic value of caring for heritage, and one of its objects is to champion high standards of conservation. It has around 2,500 members drawn from both UK and overseas professionals, and is registered with the Charity Commission.
Dr. Godfrey is a professionally accredited archaeological scientist and academic. She was for eleven years, from late 2007 to 2018, a fee-paying member of Icon. Dr. Godfrey was first a full member of Icon from 2007–2015, and then an Associate member from 2015–18, after Icon re-classified its membership and introduced new membership policies and procedures in 2015. Dr. Godfrey served as a voluntary elected member of the management committee of the Icon's specialist interest Archaeology Group in a number of roles from 2010 to 2018, finally serving as the elected Chair of Icon's Archaeology Group management committee from 2015–18. As I have mentioned above, Dr. Godfrey was expelled from membership of Icon at a meeting of its Board of Trustees on 14 December 2018.
One of my main tasks in the trial is to determine the single natural and ordinary meaning of the words complained of (set out fully below) and as is now common in the trial of such preliminary issues, I approached this task, in the first instance, by reading the statements without reference to the Particulars of Claim, the witness statements and skeleton arguments.
Having formed an initial view, I found the parties' submissions helpful as a cross-check of my initial views. My conclusions did not ultimately accord completely with the positions of either party and I will summarise their submissions in broad terms below. Although there were differences of emphasis, the parties were not in fact that far apart on the issue of meaning. When one considers the simple nature of the statements, to which I now turn, that is not surprising.
II. The publications and the rival meanings
The full terms of the 20 November 2018 statement were as follows:
“Icon member issued formal public reprimand
The Conduct Committee of Icon was convened on 20 th September 2018 to hear an allegation that Icon member Dr Evelyne Godfrey had made remarks in email correspondence that could amount to a contravention of clause 4.19 of the Code of Conduct.
Having reviewed the decision of the Investigation Committee and having considered all the documentary and other evidence before it, the Conduct Committee found proved that Dr Godfrey had used language that was deplorable and unprofessional in email correspondence and thereby convened clause 4.19 of the Code of Conduct.
The Committee further determined that it was necessary to impose restrictive measures in the case and recommended to Icon that a reprimand is imposed. The Committee further stipulated that the reprimand be made public, due to the wide publication of the remarks, in order to maintain standards in the profession.”
(The underlined text above contained hyperlinks to the Complaints Procedure and to the Code of Conduct.)
As to meaning, in summary, Dr. Godfrey argued that the 20 November 2018 meant that it was “proved” that Dr. Godfrey had used language that was deplorable and unprofessional in email correspondence and had thereby contravened the Icon Code of Conduct. It was argued that this meant it had been conclusively demonstrated by evidence or argument that Dr. Godfrey was guilty of the alleged wrongdoing. Accordingly, Dr. Godfrey has asserted a Chase Level 1 meaning (and, indeed, this is not disputed by Icon).
Icon argued that the 20 November 2018 statement meant that Dr. Godfrey had used deplorable and unprofessional language in email correspondence and had thereby been found by Icon's Conduct Committee to have contravened the standards expected of an Icon member under Paragraph 4.19 of its Code of Conduct.
The full terms of the 1 January 2019 statement were as follows:
“Icon member expelled
At a meeting on 14 th December 2018, the Board of Trustees of the Institute of Conservation resolved to expel Dr Evelyne Godfrey from membership of the Institute of Conservation on the ground that her continued membership is harmful to or is likely to become harmful to the interests of the Charity.
This decision, which is in accordance with Article 30.2.7 of Icon's Articles of Association, resulted from Evelyne Godfrey's continuing behaviour towards other members, staff, external partners and other organisations despite the published reprimand that had been issued.”
Dr. Godfrey's submission, in outline, was that the 1 January 2019 statement meant that the Board of Trustees decided to expel her because her membership was harmful (or likely to be harmful) to the organisation, and they had based their decision on her continuing behaviour towards other members, staff, external partners and other organisations, despite the published reprimand that had been issued. Again, Dr. Godfrey asserts a Chase Level 1 meaning (which was not in dispute).
Icon argued that the 1 January 2019 statement meant that Icon's Board of Trustees had resolved to expel Dr. Godfrey from Icon on the ground that her continuing behaviour towards other members, staff, external partners and other organisations, meant that Dr. Godfrey's continued membership was, or was likely to become, harmful to the interests of the Charity.
III. Meaning: the law and conclusions
There was no dispute as to the basic principles that govern the court's approach in relation to this exercise. I have had regard to Koutsogiannis v The Random House Group Ltd [2019] EWHC 48 (QB); [2020] 4 WLR 25 at [11–12] and there is no need reproduce Nicklin J's helpful summary which can be consulted on the hyperlink.
In my judgment, this is a straightforward case and an over-elaborate analysis is apt to distract one from the basic task. Although I found the submissions of assistance, I ultimately found the final meaning of the statements to be that which had originally struck me as a matter of immediate impression (and which is not in fact that far from the rival meanings put forward).
As to the 20 November 2018 statement, it meant that Dr. Godfrey had been found by the Icon Conduct Committee to have used deplorable and unprofessional language in email correspondence and it decided that Dr. Godfrey had accordingly fallen below the standards expected of an Icon member under Paragraph 4.19 of its Code of Conduct.
As to the 1 January 2019 statement, it meant Icon's Board of Trustees had decided, in accordance with Icon's rules, to expel Dr. Godfrey from membership because of her behaviour towards other members, staff, external partners and other organisations; that this was behaviour which had carried on despite the earlier reprimand issued to Dr. Godfrey, and that for these reasons Dr. Godfrey's continued membership was currently, or would be likely to become, harmful to the interests of the organisation.
For completeness, I should add that I have come to my conclusion as to the meaning of the 20 November 2018 statement without reference to the two hyperlinks it contained (see paragraph [8] above). I do not consider the reasonable reader would in the circumstances be concerned to consult the formal documents one is sent to by these hyperlinks. The statements are simple and clear and require no further explanation.
I originally understood Dr. Godfrey's position to be that the links do not assist in terms of context or meaning. That is certainly the impression I obtained from the written submissions, but my understanding may not be correct.
I have accordingly also considered whether the ordinary and reasonable reader would arrive at a different meaning if, in addition to reading the text, they also clicked on and consulted these hyperlinks. My conclusion as to meaning would have been the same in such circumstances.
Had the reader taken this step, at most, they might have looked at the detail of the Code of Conduct and discovered what acts amounts to a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
BW Legal Services Ltd v Trustpilot A/S
...when ascertaining meaning: see Koutsogiannis at principle (ix). This point which was endorsed by the Supreme Court in Stocker v Stocker [2020] EWHC 374, SC (“ Stocker”), per Lord Kerr at [39] to [46]. Further, no evidence, beyond the publication complained of, is admissible in determining t......