The High Court has recently thrown
out a libel claim brought by Nancy Dell’Olio against the Daily Mail. A double page
spread under the catchy heading “Return of the Man Eater” referred to her
relationship with Sir Trevor Nunn.
In any libel claim the Claimant has
to specify the allegedly defamatory meaning contained in the words used. The Claimant’s first attempt was that they
meant she is “a serial gold digger and
has deliberately set out to snare herself a wealthy man by making their
adulterous affair public thereby destroying his marriage for her own personal gain”. Since
the article had itself pointed out that Sir Trevor Nunn’s marriage had already
broken down and that it was him pursuing her, not the other way around, that alleged
meaning was abandoned in favour of “a
serial gold digger who cynically seeks out relationships with men not for genuine
emotional reasons but because they are millionaires and therefore capable of funding
her conspicuously lavish and ostentatious lifestyle”.
A libel claim can only go forward
for decision by a jury if the judge holds that the article was at least “capable of substantially affecting (or
tending to affect) in an adverse manner the attitude of other people towards
this Claimant”. The article must be read in a reasonable, not strained,
way, and read as a whole – not just the headline and not cherry picking out of
context. It is not enough to say that by some
person or another the words might be understood in a defamatory way. The judge has to borrow the mindset of the hypothetical reasonable reader who is
taken be representative of all likely readers of the publication.
I always smile at the Court’s approach to this
notional being. He is “not naïve but he
is not unduly suspicious. He can read between the lines. He can read an
implication more readily than a lawyer and may indulge in a certain amount of
loose thinking but he must be treated as a man who is not avid for scandal and
someone who does not, and should not, select one bad meaning where other
non-defamatory meanings are available”.
The Court’s Decision
The Judge found the article “unflattering and even insulting”- but held
that the references to lifestyle, money and wealth did not pass “the threshold of seriousness required if a
publication is to be capable of being defamatory”. The article was simply not
capable of bearing any defamatory meaning, and there was no further decision to
be made on this at a full jury trial.
Comment
The case is a useful insight into the judicial
approach to the world of celebrity spats, and the workings of the filters built
into the litigation process. Not every aggrieved celebrity is always entitled
to take her case all the way to a costly trial. Both the defendant (even the
Daily Mail) and the public purse need protection from the continued pursuit of
litigation which is doomed to fail.
For further information in
connection with our libel and commercial disputes practice and the possible use
of Conditional Fee Agreements in these areas please contact John
Cadywould on 01603 675629 or at jbc@rogers-norton.co.uk.
Posts
