(1) Assessment of what constituted an ‘office’ or ‘calling’ was an objective test, although the claimant’s subjective view of the activity could inform that objective test.
(2) The Master rejected the Defendants’ submission (based in-part on Pepper v Hart material from Hansard) that a ‘calling’ necessarily had to connote an occupation or professional activity: it could in principle include altruistic or unremunerated activities, but the test was whether it was sufficiently established as to present as an objectively recogniseable trait, characteristic or feature of that individual.
(3) On the evidence, there was no basis of the Claimant ever having held an ‘office’ in the society, and she did not suggest that she held such an office at the time the words complained of were spoken. Mere membership of the society could not constitute an office: Warby J in Umeyor v Ibe  EWHC 862 (QB) at  applied;
(4) On the evidence, the activities of the Claimant in the society, including her organising bridge tournaments some years prior to the alleged slanders, did not establish a ‘calling’ of some vocational character.
(5) The slander claims were not slander per se and having pleaded no pecuniary loss should be struck out under CPR r.3.4(2)(a)
(6) All the other causes of action were struck out and/or summary judgment granted to the defendants.
Permission to appeal was refused by Master Thornett, and then on-paper by Jefford J. At the hearing of the application for oral renewal of permission to appeal before Warby J, the Claimant withdrew her application through counsel.