The recent case of Currie v Soho Theatre Company [2026] EWCA Civ 400 (Court of Appeal) brings to light certain intricacies within the tort of defamation. Here, the Court of Appeal examines various issues in the case, such as the nature of defamatory statements and how they can be interpreted in the eyes of law as opposed to a layperson’s understanding.
Background
Paul Currie, the claimant, was a performer who held a show at the Soho Theatre, operated by the defendant.
The defendant published a press statement regarding the claimant’s conduct during the show shortly after it had concluded, which can be summarised as follows:
- After the claimant’s show, he subjected Jewish members of the audience to intimidation and verbal abuse, and were asked to leave the theatre
- The theatre does not tolerate intimidation of audience members, acts of antisemitism, and other racist acts
- The claimant would not be allowed to perform at the theatre again and the theatre would continue their investigation into the incident
The claimant issued proceedings against the defendant and denied that he had acted in an antisemitic manner, that the defendant’s press statement was defamatory, and had falsely characterised and branded him as such. Though the defendant did not deny that parts of the press release were defamatory at common law, the parties disagreed in their claims over which statements were opinion and which were fact. The defence of honest comment being available.
Fact or Opinion?
In the High Court the judge held that the natural and ordinary meaning of the press release was that the claimant had verbally abused Jewish members of the audience and aggressively demanded that they leave the theatre; such actions constituting grounds to investigate the possibility of criminal offences having been committed. The first sentence of this meaning was held to be a factual allegation of verbal abuse; hence it was defamatory towards the claimant at common law.
However, the court held that the defendant’s description of the claimant’s behaviour as antisemitic was an opinion inferred from the claimant’s conduct towards Jewish members of the audience.
The claimant appealed, but the decision was upheld and the Court of Appeal confirmed that the theatre’s statement that he had antisemitic motives based on his actions was a statement of opinion.
Natural and Ordinary Meaning
Under the Defamation Act, the courts must assess the meaning of the defamatory statements through the eyes of the “reasonable reader” and determine the definition and meaning that would have been understood by someone of that state of mind.
In Currie, the court observed that ordinary readers may draw implications more readily than legal professionals and may be influenced by news reports, public opinion, and other media coverage. This can make it difficult to decide whether indirect references, allusions or vague comments about a person or subject meet the legal test for defamation.