Why ‘meaning’ matters — lessons from recent defamation & malicious falsehood cases

Reputation management disputes often turn on what the court decides words actually mean. 

Two recent decisions underline just how pivotal the issue of ‘meaning’ is in defamation and malicious falsehood claims and how easily a case can fail if the pleaded meaning doesn’t align with what the hypothetical ordinary reasonable reader would take from the words used.

Both cases — one involving online reviews of a law firm, the other concerning reports to Amazon about alleged counterfeit goods — show the practical consequences when meanings aren’t clearly pleaded or when the court reaches a different decision to the interpretation pleaded by the parties.

Here, Glyn Lancefield from our litigation team explores how the Courts determined meaning in these decisions and what they signal for future reputation management claims.

How the courts determine meaning

The courts decide meaning as a preliminary issue in defamation proceedings and the only admissible evidence is the words themselves. 

While meaning is often decided at a court hearing, in the case of Hewson v Times Newspapers Ltd [2019] EWHC 650 (QB), the Court held that it can be determined “on paper” without a hearing. In doing so, the courts seek to reduce costs and deal with cases expeditiously as well as fairly. When determining meaning this way, the court will consider written submissions and will circulate its judgment in draft before it’s handed down.

One meaning per statement: the B&L Solicitors v Niazi decision

In the case of TWH Legal Services Limited trading as B&L Solicitors & Another v Niazi & Another [2026] EWHC 746 (KB), the Court was asked to determine the meaning of a series of online reviews before it could decide whether any of them were defamatory. 

As each review is treated as a separate publication — and therefore a separate cause of action — the Judge held that the Claimant must plead a specific meaning of each individual review, rather than treating them as carrying one identical meaning.

How the Court approached the online reviews

The case involved three similar online reviews published between April and September 2024 in relation to a law firm and solicitor. The Claimants pleaded that all three of the reviews had one identical meaning. Deputy High Court Judge Guy Vassall-Adams KC noted that, in defamation, each statement gives rise to its own cause of action and that the Claimants not pleading specific meanings meant that “focus and clarity” was missing from their claim.

The Judge’s findings on meaning & defamation

The First Defendant had actually admitted the meanings pleaded by the Claimants but the Judge still reached his own decision and found that an ordinary reasonable reader wouldn’t have understood the reviews in the way that the Claimants pleaded. Having decided the meanings, the Judge determined that the First Claimant hadn’t been defamed and that the libel claim would proceed only in relation to the Second Claimant individual.

Meaning in the Amazon seller dispute: Digital Isle v Marcos Enterprise

A week earlier, two competitor Amazon sellers had been in court for a preliminary issues trial to determine the meaning of statements made in a dispute relating to Velcro products. 

The case of Digital Isle Limited v Marcos Enterprise & Another [2026] EWHC 642 (KB) arose after the First Defendant purchased products from the Claimant’s Amazon shop and the Second Defendant reported to Amazon that the products were counterfeit. 

The Claimant refunded the purchase price of £2,538.61 but Amazon subsequently removed the listing as a result of the report. The Claimant later obtained a copy of the report through a Court Order for non-party disclosure and brought this defamation and malicious falsehood claim in relation to the statements that it contained.

How the Court assessed the report to Amazon

Mrs. Justice Tipples DBE decided that, when determining meaning, the Court must avoid an overly analytical approach and instead focus on the impression that would have been conveyed to the hypothetical reasonable reader on a single reading of the report. 

What Amazon itself had said following the report was inadmissible when assessing its meaning. The Judge noted that the report wasn’t expressed in cautious terms — referring to the Claimant having acted “illegally” — and decided that the reasonable reader would have understood the report to mean that the Claimant had used Velcro's branding alongside its own to make it look like it was the manufacturer of the product.

Fact or opinion? The Court’s next step

Having determined meaning, the next important task for the Court was to decide whether the statements were fact or opinion. The Judge held that the allegation that the Claimant was selling counterfeit products was a statement of fact, while the assertion that the Claimant had infringed Velcro’s trademark rights was a statement of opinion. The Judge determined that these statements were defamatory of the Claimant at common law.

Four key takeaways

1. Form a realistic view as to the ordinary and natural meaning of the words that are the subject of the dispute.
2. Be precise and plead a clear meaning.
3. Plead a meaning of each statement.
4. Consider whether possible meanings amount to statements of fact or of opinion and — if the latter — the merits of the defence at Section 3 of the Defamation Act 2013.
   
    

Talk to us

Our experienced and award-winning defamation and reputation management team advises clients on asserting meaning at the earliest stage of a dispute. 

Under the Pre-Action Protocol for Media and Communications Claims, both the intended claimant and defendant must set out their imputation of the statements. We provide clear, early guidance on the ordinary and natural meaning that a judge is likely to find.

Talk to us by giving us a call on 0333 004 4488, sending us an email at hello@brabners.com or completing our contact form.