Tort Law

Petra Ecclestone v. Telegraph Media Group Ltd.

[2009] EWHC 2779 (QB)

Facts

• Petra Ecclestone was a public figure associated with fashion and the family of Formula One businessman Bernie Ecclestone.
• The Daily Telegraph published a short item in its “Mandrake” column.
• The headline included the phrase “Petra goes hell for leather for fashion.”
• The article discussed her use of leather and referred to views attributed to her concerning vegetarianism and persons who promoted it.
• Ecclestone alleged that the words portrayed her as:
o dismissive of vegetarian beliefs;
o insensitive towards animal welfare;
o spoiled;
o callous; and
o contemptuous of persons holding different ethical views.
• She claimed that this meaning lowered her reputation.
• The newspaper applied to strike out the claim or obtain summary judgment.
• The court had to decide whether the publication was legally capable of being defamatory.

• What meaning would the ordinary reasonable reader give the article?
• Whether apparent discourtesy, insensitivity or disagreement with an ethical view is sufficiently serious to be defamatory.
• Whether the words crossed the threshold of lowering the claimant in the estimation of society generally.

• The meaning of a publication is determined through the eyes of the ordinary reasonable reader.
• That reader is:
o fair-minded;
o neither unusually suspicious nor unusually naive;
o capable of reading the publication as a whole; and
o attentive to tone and context.
• Words are defamatory where they tend to lower the claimant in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally.
• Mere:
o criticism;
o ridicule;
o discourtesy;
o disagreement;
o unflattering description; or
o offence to a limited group
does not necessarily meet the defamatory threshold.
• The court may dismiss a claim where the words are incapable of bearing a sufficiently serious defamatory meaning.

• The headline used wordplay connecting leather clothing with the expression “hell for leather.”
• The ordinary reader would recognise the item as a light social or gossip column rather than a detailed accusation of misconduct.
• The attributed views might suggest that Ecclestone did not share or prioritise vegetarian principles.
• However, disagreement with vegetarianism did not itself imply dishonesty, cruelty or serious moral wrongdoing.
• The court rejected an over-elaborate interpretation that converted casual wording into a grave attack upon character.
• The ordinary reader would not infer every harsh implication advanced in the pleading.
• A person might consider the remarks insensitive or disagreeable, but that was not enough to show that society generally would think substantially less of Ecclestone.
• Defamation law does not provide a remedy for every publication that causes embarrassment, irritation or criticism.
• The claim therefore failed at the threshold stage without requiring a full trial on truth or other defences.

• The High Court held that the words were not capable of bearing the pleaded defamatory meanings.
• The article might be unflattering, but it did not sufficiently lower Ecclestone’s reputation in the estimation of right-thinking persons generally.
• The claim was struck out.
• The decision illustrates the seriousness threshold in defamatory meaning and the importance of reading the publication as a whole.