Mughal v Telegraph Media Group Ltd [2014] EWHC 1371 (QB), [2014] All ER (D) 47 (May)
A court was not bound to determine that the words complained of either did or did not bear meanings attributed to them by one or other party. The court at a trial had to determine the actual meaning, and that might include a meaning contended for by neither party, provided (among other things) that it was not more serious than the meaning contended for by a claimant. If the court decided that the words complained of were defamatory, it was good practice also to determine whether they were fact or were opinion (comment), and it might decide the question either before or after deciding whether or not the words were defamatory. There was little scope for restrictions on political speech or on debate on questions of public interest.
