Cases

Moss v Channel Five Broadcasting Ltd

Held

(1) The Defendant was entitled to justify the words complained of in any meaning that they were capable of bearing. Applying the well-known principles to determining the range of permissible meanings (see e.g. Gillick v Brook Advisory Centres), the Defendant's meaning was one that the words complained of (in their context) were capable of bearing (Bookbinder v Tebbit [1989] 1 WLR 640 and Williams v Reason [1988] 1 WLR 96 considered); (2) as such, the Defendant was entitled to rely on the later Mirror incident and subsequent apology and the Claimant was ordered to plead her case in answer to them in her Reply.

Also