David Paisley vs Graham Linehan

High Court rules on libel case involving online comments and publications

The High Court, presided over by Deputy High Court Judge Aidan Eardley KC, delivered a significant judgment on 17 March 2025 in the case of David Paisley vs Graham Linehan. The case, which was heard in the Media and Communications List of the King's Bench Division, revolved around allegations of libel stemming from articles and comments published on the Defendant's Substack.

This third judgment focused primarily on the issue of costs, following two previous judgments that addressed preliminary issues concerning the statements complained of. The Claimant, David Paisley, alleged that the Defendant, Graham Linehan, had published defamatory articles and comments that implied he was a paedophile.

In his ruling, Judge Eardley highlighted the procedural complexities that arose from the Claimant's Amended Particulars of Claim, which included multiple alternative formulations of the 'statement complained of'. This approach led to significant challenges in determining the relevant context for the comments and articles in question.

The judgment detailed the procedural history, noting that the Claimant's case was initially based on seven publications, including articles and comments on Substack. The court was particularly concerned with 'Publication 4', which included an article and associated comments that were alleged to be defamatory.

Judge Eardley emphasised the importance of clarity in pleading statements and context in libel actions. He noted that the Claimant's approach of presenting multiple alternative statements and contexts was problematic and contributed to the procedural difficulties encountered during the hearings.

The judgment also addressed the Defendant's conduct, noting that the Defendant's response to the Claimant's pleadings was passive and lacked clarity. While the Defendant did not acquiesce to the Claimant's approach, the court found that both parties shared responsibility for the procedural challenges that arose.

Ultimately, the court ordered the Claimant to pay 50% of the Defendant's costs incurred in preparing for and attending the January 2025 hearing, which was necessary to resolve the outstanding issues. The court also ordered a payment on account of £23,000, reflecting the Claimant's greater responsibility for the procedural difficulties.

This case highlights the complexities of libel actions involving online publications and comments, particularly in the context of platforms like Substack, where the visibility and context of comments can vary significantly. The judgment underscores the need for precision and clarity in pleading cases of this nature.

Learn More

For more information on media law, see BeCivil's guide to Film and Media Law.