Nancy and others

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.