Doherty v Eccles: High Court determines meaning of doctors' emails in defamation claim

The High Court has ruled on the meaning of three emails at the centre of a defamation claim between two senior doctors. The decision addresses how far earlier messages in an email chain may be read as context, and confirms that a reference to someone being reported to the police will often bear only a Chase level 3 meaning.

In Doherty v Eccles [2026] EWHC 2936 (KB), Hill J determined preliminary issues of meaning, fact or opinion and defamatory tendency, which Steyn J had ordered by consent.

Background

The claimant, Dr Mary Doherty, is a consultant anaesthetist and academic. The defendant, Dr Jessica Eccles, is a consultant psychiatrist and academic at Brighton and Sussex Medical School and chairs a special interest group of the Royal College of Psychiatrists. The defendant had previously taken part in a research project run by the claimant.

In December 2024, two days before a conference at which the claimant was due to speak, the defendant sent three emails to a small group of recipients at the medical school and the College.

Meaning

The first email said the claimant had been sending intimidating and threatening texts and emails, threatening to disrupt the defendant's chairing of the conference or the conference itself. The judge held this bore a Chase level 1 meaning. The slash in "my chairing/the conference" meant "or", not "and".

The defendant argued that the second email, sent 20 minutes later in the same chain, should be read with the first, either as a single publication or as directly available context. Hill J disagreed. Despite the shared subject line and proximity in time, the second email did not refer back to the first and had a different addressee and purpose. Applying Dee v Daily Telegraph and Monroe v Hopkins, it had to be read on its own.

That email said the claimant's conduct "constitutes harassment via malicious communication" and that the police were aware. Despite the unqualified wording, the judge found only a Chase level 3 meaning. Following Pearson v Chief Constable of Essex [2026] EWHC 961 (KB), ordinary readers know that police complaints are investigated before any charge, and would see the defendant as a lay person describing her report.

In the third email, the claimant's threats to make disclosures and to give a "devastating" talk carried Chase level 1 meanings. The reference to a police report again carried a Chase level 3 meaning.

Fact, opinion and defamatory tendency

Distinguishing Smith v ADVF and Currie v Soho Theatre, the judge held that describing messages as "intimidating and threatening" was a statement of fact, because the defendant was simply describing what she had received. Her speculation about the claimant's personality and motives, introduced by "I suspect", was opinion, as were her prediction of further disruption and her view that disclosure would be a serious breach of research ethics. The parties agreed that each opinion indicated its basis.

The meanings were held defamatory at common law with two exceptions. The first was the statement that the claimant made a sexual advance which the defendant rebuffed. The email gave no context suggesting impropriety, and the judge held that an unreciprocated advance, without more such as a hierarchical relationship or relationship of trust, does not offend the common, shared values of society. Alsaifi v Trinity Mirror was distinguished on that basis. The second exception was the speculation about personality and motive.

The claimant must now amend her particulars of claim to reflect the meanings found.

David Mitchell appeared for the claimant. Aidan Wills appeared for the defendant.