this post was submitted on 20 Feb 2025
29 points (91.4% liked)

World News

33507 readers
259 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

I've found the entire text of the judgement here: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/2024/3276.html

It's also full of legalese, but as far as I understand the court did not rule on the verity of the statements, only on whether they are defamatory:

  1. Meanings will be considered defamatory at common law if they "substantially affect in an adverse manner the attitude of other people towards a Claimant, or have a tendency to do so"

...

Conclusion:

...

  1. The meanings of both publications are of fact and both are defamatory at common law with a Chase level 2 meaning.

This just means that a lawsuit can move on to factual arguments (i.e. arguments about the truth of those statements). Whoever is more convincing to the judge will win. So IIUC at least, the headline of this post is incorrect.