Jeynes v News Magazines Ltd and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Sedley,Sir Anthony Clarke MR,Lord Justice Tuckey,Lord Justice Jacob |
| Judgment Date | 31 January 2008 |
| Neutral Citation | [2008] EWCA Civ 130,[2007] EWCA Civ 1270 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | Case No: A2/2007/0996 |
| Date | 31 January 2008 |
[2007] EWCA Civ 1270
Lord Justice Sedley
Case No: A2/2007/0996
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(MR JUSTICE EADY)
Mr A Davies (instructed by Messrs Osmond & Osmond) appeared on behalf of the Appellant.
Ms A Marzec QC (instructed by Messrs Farrer & Co) appeared in a watching capacity on behalf of the Respondent.
Mr Adrian Davies renews the application of the claimant for permission to appeal against the striking out of her libel claim by Eady J. Pill LJ on consideration of the papers agreed with his reasoning and concluded that there was no prospect of a successful appeal. For reasons that I will now briefly explain I do not share that view, which is I think largely a matter of impression, and I propose to grant permission to appeal.
The claimant had her proverbial 15 minutes of fame as a housemate on Big Brother. She went on the show at a time when the promoters were putting it about that a transsexual was going to be one of the housemates. The claimant is not a transsexual, but some time afterwards she gave an interview to a magazine called Love It!—published by the first defendant—in which she described an embarrassing moment when her admittedly artificially enlarged breasts fell out of their casing. This was trailed on the front page of Love It!, and, in an advertisement for it in the News of the World published by the second defendants, in the words “BB's LISA 'THE GEEZER' My fake boobs fell out on date with James Hewitt!” The claimant says that, whether in their ordinary meaning or by innuendo, these words suggest that she is a man or is transgendered.
The defendants, represented by Miss Marzec, who I am pleased to say is here today in a watching capacity, persuaded Eady J to strike out both allegations with the result that the claim stood dismissed. The application was made, not on the footing that there can be nothing defamatory in suggesting that a woman is in fact a transsexual or a man, but on the footing that the words could not reasonably be read as making any such imputation. Eady J's conclusion was formulated in this way:
“… I have come to the conclusion that Ms Marzec's argument is correct. That is to say, no reasonable reader of the small box on the front page of the magazine, whether in the News of the World advertisement or in the magazine itself, could reasonably come to the conclusion that the words 'BBs Lisa “the Geezer”' meant that the woman portrayed in the photograph was deceiving people, or intending to deceive people, into believing that she was a woman when she was in fact a man or a transsexual. That would be to read far too much into those words, even leaving out of account the article within. A reader would indeed be perverse to derive from the words that element of deception or, as it is put in the particulars of claim, 'posing as a woman'.”
Mr Davies advances two principal criticisms of this passage. First, it was not just the use of the word “geezer” that carried the sting; it was the use of it in association with the words “fake boobs”. Secondly, he submits, it cannot possibly be thought that even in isolation from the article the words are incapable of suggesting that the claimant is not really a woman; yet this is what the judge found. Mr Davies also seeks to meet Miss Marzec's fallback on to the Charleston rule by pointing out that, as Lord Nicholls was careful to say in that case, an unobjectionable text cannot always cure a defamatory headline. That, he submits, may well be this case; whether it is is for a jury to say.
It seems to me that meaning is quintessentially a matter for a jury, especially, if I may say so, in matters of demotic literature and popular culture such as we have here. The task of a judge on a strike-out application concerned with possible meaning is to sever only what on any rational view is fanciful, absurd or factitious. I accept, stressing that I have of course considered only one side of the argument, Mr Davies' submission that the meaning and innuendo pleaded by him are arguably not within this class. If that is right then the claimant will be entitled to put them before a jury for its verdict. It will be for a full court to say whether Mr Davies is right in saying that this is such a case or whether Miss Marzec was right all along in saying that on no rational view could it be.
Permission to appeal will therefore be granted.
Order: Application granted.
[2008] EWCA Civ 130
Sir Anthony Clarke Mr
Lord Justice Tuckey
And Lord Justice Jacob
Case No: A2/2007/0996
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(MR JUSTICE EADY)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Mr A Davies & Ms S Hastie (instructed by Messrs Osmond & Osmond) appeared on behalf of the Appellant
Mr A Caldecott QC & Ms Alexandra Marzec (instructed by Messrs Farrer & Co) appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
Introduction
This is an appeal from an order dated 25 April 2007 made by Eady J (“the judge”) in a libel action in which he struck out paragraphs 5 and 6 of the particulars of claim, as not disclosing defamatory meanings that the words complained of were capable of meaning. In consequence he dismissed the appellant's claim. The judge refused permission to appeal. So did Pill LJ on paper but permission was subsequently granted by Sedley LJ after an oral hearing.
The alleged libel
The words complained of appeared on the front cover of the 9–15 May 2006 issue of a magazine called 'Love It'! The words were “BB'S LISA 'THE GEEZER' My fake boobs fell out on a date with James Hewitt!” They appeared in the bottom left-hand corner of the front page. Immediately to the left of them was a photograph of the head and shoulders of the appellant with the word “REALITY!” across her chest. The first respondent is the publisher of the magazine. On page 57 of the issue of the News of the World on 14 May 2006 there appeared an advertisement for the magazine which included a much reduced black-and-white copy of the front page and thus of the photograph of the appellant and the words complained of. The News of the World was published by the second respondent. On pages 22 and 23 of the magazine there appeared an article, for which the words complained of were a trailer, but which is not itself complained of.
Paragraph 5 of the Particulars of Claim is in these terms:
“The Words bear the natural and ordinary (alternatively the inferential meaning) that the Claimant (who is and was born a woman) is in truth a man posing as a woman, alternatively that the Claimant is a transgendered or transsexual person, who was born a man but has become a woman.”
It is agreed that the words in brackets are irrelevant. The appellant's case is thus that the words complained of have one or other of two meanings: (1) that the appellant is a man posing as a woman or (2) that she is a transgendered or transsexual person who was born a man but has become a woman. It can be seen that these are alternative meanings.
Paragraph 6 of the particulars of claim alleged that the words conveyed the same meaning by innuendo. The Particulars of Innuendo were these:
“6.1. At the time when the claimant appeared on Big Brother, rumours were circulating that a transgendered or transsexual housemate was about to be introduced into the Big Brother house.
6.2 To the best of the claimant's knowledge and belief the broadcasters of Big Brother were themselves spreading the rumours pleaded at paragraph 6.1 above so as to increase interest in the programme. The rumours had reached a wide audience.
6.3 The jury will be asked to infer firstly that many persons to whom the Words were published must have known the facts and matters pleaded at sub-paragraph 6.1 and 6.2 above at the time of publication, and secondly that these readers would have understood the Words to bear the meaning set out in paragraph 5 above.”
It is common ground that the appellant had been a housemate on the television programme Big Brother for about a fortnight in mid-2003, which was nearly three years before the publication complained of.
The judgment
The issue before the judge was whether the words complained of were capable of bearing either the pleaded natural and ordinary meaning or the pleaded innuendo meaning or any meaning defamatory of the appellant. The application was made under CPR 53 PD paragraph 4.1 which expressly provides that questions of this kind can be decided at any time. The judge accepted the respondent's submission that no reasonable person could construe the words and photograph in their context as conveying the message that the appellant is male or, as the judge put it, “more importantly that she was deceiving anyone or pretending to be female.” He accepted the submission that such an inference would be the product of a “strained, forced, or utterly unreasonable interpretation.” Put another way, he held that if the jury were to uphold such a meaning, the decision could be challenged on appeal as “perverse”. The judge noted at paragraph 12 that there was no dispute that that was the correct test...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Neil McEvoy v Michael Costas Michael
...per Laws LJ in Lait v Evening Standard Ltd [2011] 1 W.L.R. 2973, 2983. 48 As to the ascertainment of the meaning of words, in Jeynes v News Magazines Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 130 Sir Anthony Clarke MR, with whom Tuckey and Jacob LJJ agreed, said this at [14]: "The legal principles relevant to me......
-
Priya Hiranandani-Vandrevala v Times Newspapers Ltd
...other differences between the meanings espoused by each party. The approach which the Court should adopt to deciding meaning 10 In Jeynes v News Magazines Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 130 Sir Anthony Clarke M.R. summarised the proper principles at [14]. He said, '(1) the governing principle is reas......
-
Thornton v Telegraph Media Group Ltd
...v Granada Television [1996] EMLR 278 at 286 and Gillick v BBC [1996] EMLR 267 at 275. It has most recently been summarised in Jeynes v News Magazines Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 130 (and Gatley on Libel and Slander 11 th ed 3.13) where Sir Anthony Clarke MR said at [14]: "The governing principles r......
-
Taveta Investments Ltd v The Financial Reporting Council
...402 [15(2)] per Davis LJ; iii) the single natural and ordinary meaning is assessed by the Court using the principles identified in Jeynes v News Magazines Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 130 [14] per Sir Anthony Clarke MR; iv) in assessing meaning, no evidence beyond the words complained of is admissib......
-
Social media in litigation
...The court, in deciding the meaning of the first and second Tweets, relied on the principles set out in Jeynes v News Magazines Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 130. Applying the overarching principle of reasonableness to Twitter meant that the court must take into account the whole Tweet and the context......
-
Whats The Meaning Of All This? The Mcalpine V Bercow Tweet Libel Action
...as they do to any other published statements. He cited the key judgment of Sir Anthony Clarke MR in Jeynes v News Magazines Limited [2008] EWCA Civ 130: "The legal principles relevant to meaning have been summarised many times and are not in dispute.... They may be summarised in this way: (......
-
Are Our Words Interpreted Differently By Social Media Users? UK Supreme Court Issues Judgment
...by our own judiciary in the future. * The Supreme Court made repeated reference to the approach adopted in Jeynes v News Magazines Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 130 The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your ......
-
Table of Cases
...291 ................................................................................. 108, 233 Jeynes v. News Magazines Limited, [2008] EWCA Civ 130 .............................................. 269, 274 John v. Associated Newspapers Ltd, [2006] EWHC 1611 (QB) .........................381,......
-
Forms of Defamatory Meaning
...of bearing a defamatory meaning. hey have most recently been set out by the Court of Appeal in Jeynes v. News Magazines Limited, [2008] EWCA Civ 130 at para 14. It is the submission of counsel for the Defendant that the words complained of are incapable of being understood to refer to the C......
-
Reference to the Plaintiff
...of bearing a defamatory meaning. hey have most recently been set out by the Court of Appeal in Jeynes v. News Magazines Limited [2008] EWCA Civ 130 at para 14. It is the submission of counsel for the Defendant that the words complained of are incapable of being understood to refer to the Cl......