KB-2025-000232 - [2025] EWHC 1784 (KB)

For completeness, I will address the meaning of the words complained of in relation to the YouTube video. However, I do so briefly, given I have already concluded that the Claimant’s defamation case in respect of the video fails as he has not shown that the words complained of referred to him. I stress that in order to address this aspect, I have to proceed on the alternative assumption that the words complained of do refer to Mr Ness; what follows is not to be taken as undermining the firm conclusion I have just expressed that the words complained of do not do so.

I confirm that I adopted the approach described in Millett (para 54 above). I have directed myself in accordance with the well-established principles (para 55 above).

I have considered the words in their context. Both parties expressed the view that “mentioning children” in the words complained of would be understood in the context of what was said shortly beforehand by Michelle Sojka at 14:19 (see Appendix 1), to refer to mentioning children when posting online.

If the words complained of did refer to the Claimant (contrary to my primary conclusion), their natural and ordinary meaning was that “he had posted online about children in a way that could put their safety at risk”.

I conclude that the words complained of contained an expression of opinion, rather than a statement of fact about the actions referred to. The words complained of included that these “takes it to a whole new level” and “potentially endangers children” (emphasis added). Thus, what was being said was in the nature of a deduction, a conclusion and/or an observation (para 56 above). Furthermore, the basis for the comment (the online posting mentioning children) was included.

If it did refer to the Claimant (contrary to my primary conclusion), the statement was defamatory at common law as it attributed behaviour that was contrary to the common shared values of our society and would tend to have a substantially adverse effect on the way that people would treat him (para 57 above).

The second part of the words quoted at para 8.1 is simply a statement of intent on the part of the Defendant and does not contain any defamatory imputation in respect of the Claimant.

For the reasons I have explained at para 55 above, the additional points raised by the Claimant in his oral submissions (para 69 above) are not relevant to the natural and ordinary meaning of the words.