Honest comment: The single meaning rule and additional imputations
Lait v Evening Standard Limited [2011] EWCA Civ 859
Summary
In a judgment handed down on 28 July 2011, the Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by Jacqui Lait, former Conservative MP for Beckenham, to reinstate her defamation claim against the Evening Standard following an article that it published in November 2009. Ms Lait’s claim had been struck out by Eady J in December 2010.
The Court of Appeal held, amongst other things, that:
- the single meaning rule applies to the defence of honest comment; and
- where a comment is honestly expressed in a media publication and is grounded upon a sufficient factual basis, a defendant should not ordinarily be held liable for an additional imputation, even where there is an insufficient factual basis to support the imputation, unless malice is found.
The facts
On 9 November 2009, the Evening Standard published an article about proposals in the Kelly report to reform parliamentary expenses. The article referred to a group of five MPs, including Ms Lait, who had written to The Times expressing their concerns that the proposal to restrict the second homes allowance for those living within a reasonable commuting distance of Westminster would discourage women from standing as MPs.
The article then stated that, "However, the criticism may risk the ire of some. Ms Lait claimed large sums to travel to her family home in Sussex, even though her constituency home was 11 miles from Westminster. She was forced to pay back nearly £25,000 after it emerged she had made a major capital gain on the sale of a home funded by the taxpayer."
The newspaper accepted that it had made an error in respect of the allegation that Ms Lait had been forced to pay back nearly £25,000, and it published an agreed correction. In addition to the travel claims, Ms Lait had, however, made a capital gain on a taxpayer-funded second home after proceedings had been issued and had given no indication that she intended to repay it.
Ms Lait sued for libel. The newspaper defended the claim on the basis of justification and honest comment.
At a hearing in December 2010, Eady J ordered summary judgment in favour of the Evening Standard, finding that the defence of honest comment was bound to succeed. In brief, he found that the primary meaning of the article was that people might react with anger to Lait's public pronouncement in the light of her having taken advantage of the old system (the "shut up" meaning). Ms Lait's counsel submitted that the article also meant that Ms Lait had behaved hypocritically (the "hypocrisy" meaning), but Eady J decided that, if the jury were to find that the words did mean this, then this was a mere additional imputation. The honest comment defence was bound to succeed in relation to the "shut up" meaning, and so the time and costs that would be incurred in Ms Lait pursuing the "hypocrisy" meaning alone would be disproportionate.
On appeal, the key issues for the Court of Appeal to decide were whether the single meaning rule applies to the defence of honest comment and, if so, whether Eady J's decision offended the single meaning rule on the basis that the "shut up" and "hypocrisy" meanings were distinct meanings that ought to have been left to a jury.
Does the single meaning rule apply to honest comment?
Lawyers Niri Shanmuganathan, Mark Dennis
Evening Standard Limited was represented by Niri Shan, Mark Dennis and Lorna Caddy of Taylor Wessing, and Mark Warby QC and Victoria Jolliffe of 5RB
