Yeo v Times Newspapers Ltd

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeMr Justice Warby
Judgment Date20 August 2014
Neutral Citation[2014] EWHC 2853 (QB)
Docket NumberCase No: HQ14D01146
CourtQueen's Bench Division
Date20 August 2014
Between:
Tim Yeo MP
Claimant
and
Times Newspapers Limited
Defendant

[2014] EWHC 2853 (QB)

Before:

Mr Justice Warby

Case No: HQ14D01146

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Matthew Nicklin QC and Victoria Jolliffe (instructed by Carter-Ruck Solicitors) for the Claimant

Gavin Millar QC (instructed by Reynolds Porter Chamberlain LLP) for the Defendant

Hearing date: 30 July 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 Warby Mr Justice Warby
1

In this libel action the Claimant, Tim Yeo MP ("Mr Yeo"), sues the Defendant, Times Newspapers Ltd ("TNL"), in respect of articles on the front and inside pages of the issue of the The Sunday Times for Sunday 9 June 2013, a further article published in the issue for Sunday 23 June 2013, and online publication of those articles since the dates of print publication in June 2013.

2

The claim form was issued on 19 March 2014. On 2 May 2014 a Defence was served. As yet, no Reply has been served. That step has been deferred pending determination of the two main applications issued on 15 July 2014 which arise for determination at this, the first Case Management Conference in the action. The first of these is an application by TNL for an order that the case be tried with a Jury. That application is supported by a witness statement of Martin Ivens, editor of The Sunday Times. TNL's application is resisted by Mr Yeo who applies, in the event that trial by Jury is rejected, for the determination of what defamatory meanings were conveyed by the words of which he complains. The parties both propose that if I do determine meaning I should also determine the extent to which any defamatory meaning which I do find to be conveyed by the words complained of is a factual allegation or a comment or opinion. In addition to the principal applications, Mr Yeo applies for relief from sanctions in respect of a failure to serve a notice of funding.

An outline of the action

3

Mr Yeo has been the Member of Parliament for South Suffolk since 1983. He held office as Minister for the Environment in 1992–1994 and held a number of Shadow Cabinet positions between 1997 and 2005. He also took leading roles on Parliamentary Select Committees. These included chairing the Environmental Audit Committee from 2005 and, from 2010 and at the times relevant to this claim, being the Chairman of the House of Commons Energy and Climate Change Select Committee ("ECCSC"). As is well-known, TNL is one of the United Kingdom's major newspaper publishers, responsible for The Times and Sunday Times print and online editions. The Sunday Times has a circulation of over 800,000 and a readership of around 2.5 million. In addition to hard copy publication, Sunday Times content is made available via TNL websites and other media.

4

One long-standing feature of The Sunday Times is its "Insight" team of investigative journalists. On 21 May 2013 two members of the Insight team, Heidi Blake and Jonathan Calvert, met Mr Yeo over lunch by prior arrangement. The journalists were working undercover, posing as representatives for a solar technology developer in the Far East. The lunch had been arranged to discuss an opportunity for Mr Yeo to provide consultancy work with an extremely generous remuneration package. The lunch meeting was covertly filmed.

5

The first of the articles of 9 June 2013 ("the Front Page Article") was the paper's front page lead, continuing onto page 2. It was headed "Top Tory in new Lobbygate row" and there was a sub-headline: "MP coached client before committee grilling". The article, 27 paragraphs long, gave an account of the arrangements for the lunch meeting, and what took place at the meeting. It referred to a House of Commons Code of Conduct prohibiting paid advocacy by MPs, and described Mr Yeo as "the latest politician to be implicated in a 'Westminster for sale' scandal that has engulfed Parliament" after revelations in The Sunday Times the previous week. After referring to what had happened to other parliamentarians so "implicated" it described an email exchange between the "lobbyists" and Mr Yeo the day after the lunch meeting, and quoted a statement from Mr Yeo.

6

The second article of 9 June ("the Inside Article") appeared on pages 6 and 7 of the print edition. It was headed "I told him in advance what to say. Ha-ha" and had a sub-headline "The chairman of a Commons committee has boasted of how he can promote businesses in which he has an interest". Over 57 paragraphs it gave a more elaborate account of the matters covered in the Front Page Article, with some additional material. It included a graphic with the words "Westminster for Sale".

7

Mr Yeo's case is that the Front Page and Inside Articles, which it is agreed should be read together, contained a defamatory factual meaning to the effect that in breach of the rules of the House of Commons he was "prepared to act, and had offered himself as willing to act, as a paid Parliamentary advocate" in certain ways. This is what is known as a "Chase Level 1" meaning, that is to say a meaning that he is guilty of wrongdoing, as opposed to a meaning that there are reasonable grounds to suspect him of wrongdoing (Level 2) or reasonable grounds to investigate whether he has engaged in wrongdoing (Level 3): Chase v News Group Newspapers [2002] EWCA Civ 1772, [2003] EMLR 11.

8

TNL denies that the Front Page and Inside Articles were defamatory of Mr Yeo but in the alternative pleads defences of justification, fair comment and Reynolds privilege. (The appropriate label for the common law defence for comment was the subject of some debate: see Joseph v Spiller [2011] 1 AC 852, [117]. The defence is however pleaded by reference to its traditional name of fair comment and that is the name I shall adopt as it also helps distinguish it from the new statutory defence referred to below). The defence of justification is not directed at a meaning that Mr Yeo was prepared to or offered to act in breach of the rules of the House of Commons. It asserts the truth of meanings of lesser gravity, including but not limited to meanings that Mr Yeo's conduct at the lunch meeting "gave reasonable grounds to suspect (alternatively to investigate)" that he was willing to lobby in a way which would breach the House of Commons prohibition on paid advocacy. These are meanings at "Chase" Level 2 or alternatively 3. The meanings which TNL defends as fair comment include these same "Chase" Level 2 or 3 meanings.

9

The article of 23 June 2013 ("the 23 June Article") appeared over some 5 paragraphs on the front page and a further 21 on page 2 of the paper and was headed "Lobbyist 'wrote peer's speech'". It was not specifically concerned with Mr Yeo, and did not mention him by name. It contained, however, a paragraph referring to an investigation by the parliamentary authorities of "three lords and a select committee chairman … after The Sunday Times revealed that they were selling themselves as parliamentary advocates for paying clients". Mr Yeo's case is that those who had read the Front Page and Inside Articles will have understood the 23 June Article to refer to him. He says that it meant that "in breach of the rules of the House of Commons he was selling himself as a Parliamentary advocate for paying clients". This is put forward as a natural and ordinary meaning or alternatively one that arises in the context of or by way of true innuendo based on the Front Page and Inside Articles.

10

TNL does not admit that the 23 June Article was understood to refer to Mr Yeo and denies that the article defamed him, but in the alternative pleads defences of justification and Reynolds privilege. Again, the meanings defended as true are lesser meanings than the one of which Mr Yeo complains. They are at Chase Level 2 or alternatively 3. There is no plea of fair comment.

11

Additional issues arise from Mr Yeo's claims in respect of the online versions of the Front Page, Inside and 23 June Articles. The online versions require separate consideration when it comes to meaning because each of them incorporated additional wording. This included, in the case of the Front Page and Inside Articles, the text of a statement made by Mr Yeo in response to publication of the print version. Mr Yeo's case is that the online versions of the articles bore the same meanings as the print versions. TNL does not accept this. Moreover, the defences to the claim in respect of online publication on and after 1 January 2014 are different, because with effect from that date ss 2, 3 and 4 of the Defamation Act 2013 abolished the common law defences of justification, fair comment and Reynolds privilege and replaced them with statutory defences of truth, honest opinion and publication on matters of public interest. TNL relies on these in place of the corresponding common law defences relied on respect of earlier publication.

12

In support of its defences of justification/truth and fair comment/honest opinion TNL relies on the communications between the journalists and Mr Yeo in the run up to, at and after the lunch meeting, together with provisions of the Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament and a resolution of the House of Commons of 6 November 1995 as amended on 14 May 2002. In aggravation of damages Mr Yeo relies on "the failure of [TNL] to publish a fair and accurate report" of a report by the House of Commons Committee on Standards ("the Standards Report") dated 19 November 2013 which Mr Yeo says "exonerated [Mr Yeo] of any breach of the MPs' Code of Conduct." TNL does not admit that the report exonerated Mr Yeo, asserts that its ambit was narrow, and that its conclusions do not match nor can they...

To continue reading

Request your trial
38 cases
  • Mir Shakil-ur-rahman v Ary Network Ltd and Another
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division
    • 27 November 2015
    ...the Court should take when determining whether the words complained of are fact or opinion was usefully summarised by Warby J in Yeo v. Times Newspapers Ltd [2015] 1 WLR 971 as follows (at [88] and [89]): (1) The statement must be recognisable as comment, as distinct from an imputation of ......
  • Louisa Donovan v Kate Gibbons
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division
    • 21 October 2014
    ...sold the dangerous pony shown in the video as being suitable for children. 13 Both counsel draw my attention to the case of Yeo v Times Newspapers Ltd [2014] EWHC 2853 at paragraphs [84] to [98], where the judge usefully gathered together the relevant principles which apply when distinguish......
  • Speedie v Sunday Newspapers Ltd
    • Ireland
    • Court of Appeal (Ireland)
    • 2 February 2017
    ...the publication in question. The rule in question was explained thus by Warby J. in Yeo v. Times Newspapers Ltd. [2014] EHC 2853, [2015] 1 W.L.R. 971, 995:- ‘The starting point is that in a libel action where meaning is disputed the court must settle on a single meaning (‘the single meanin......
  • Khairul Azwan Harun v Mohd Rafizi Ramli
    • Malaysia
    • High Court (Malaysia)
    • 1 January 2016
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • An Mithid Duinn an Truicear a Tharraingt ar Airteagal 8.3 de Bhunreacht na hÉireann 1937?
    • Ireland
    • Cork Online Law Review No. 19-2020, January 2020
    • 1 January 2020
    ...January 2017) accessed 5 March 2020 . 56 Defamation Act 2013 (England and Wales), s 11. 57 Yeo MP v Times Newspapers Limited [2014] EWHC 2853 (QB) [60], [2015] 1 WLR 971 . 61 (2020) 19 COLR 62 in 2013; ‘a simple libel action concerning a single factual allegation in which meaning is not in ......
  • Irish Defamation Law and the Jury: A Behavioural Economic Perspective
    • Ireland
    • Cork Online Law Review No. 19-2020, January 2020
    • 1 January 2020
    ...> accessed 5 March 2020 . 56Defamation Act 2013 (England and Wales), s 11. 57Yeo MP v Times Newspapers Limited [2014] EWHC 2853 (QB) [60], [2015] 1 WLR 971. 61 (2020) 19 COLR 62 in 2013; ‘a simple libel action concerning a single factual allegation in which meaning is not in dispute and the......

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