Smart Shirts Limited v Sheffield Hallam University

The High Court examined the defamatory meanings of a report published by Sheffield Hallam University, which implicated Smart Shirts Limited in forced labour practices in Xinjiang, determining that the report and associated emails carried a Chase level 2 defamatory meaning, indicating reasonable grounds to suspect the allegations were true.

TLDR:

• High Court assessed defamatory meanings in a university report on forced labour.
• The report and emails were found to carry a Chase level 2 defamatory meaning.
• Smart Shirts Limited was linked to forced labour in the Xinjiang region.
• The court considered the implications of corporate associations and supply chain transparency.

Background: The case involved Smart Shirts Limited, a Hong Kong-based garment supplier, and Sheffield Hallam University, which published a report on the connections between apparel supply chains and forced labour in Xinjiang. The report named Smart Shirts as part of a group allegedly linked to forced labour practices. Prior to the report's publication, emails were sent to third parties, including Smart Shirts, seeking responses to the allegations. The claimant argued that the report and emails were defamatory, damaging its reputation by suggesting involvement in human rights abuses.

Legal Issues: The primary legal issue was whether the report and emails were defamatory, specifically the natural and ordinary meanings of the publications and their Chase level. The court applied established legal principles to determine whether the meanings were defamatory at common law. The court considered the report's presentation and the implications of corporate associations, evaluating whether the publications suggested actual involvement or merely grounds for suspicion of forced labour practices.

Judgment Summary: Deputy High Court Judge Susie Alegre found that both the report and the emails carried a Chase level 2 defamatory meaning, indicating reasonable grounds to suspect Smart Shirts' involvement in forced labour practices. The court determined that the report's presentation as a credible source of information, based on extensive research, supported this level of meaning. The judgment highlighted the importance of distinguishing between direct allegations and grounds for suspicion, ultimately finding the latter in this case.

Practical Implications: This case underscores the importance of precise language in reports and communications that could impact reputations. Legal practitioners should note the court's approach to assessing defamatory meanings, particularly in the context of corporate associations and supply chain transparency. The judgment also highlights the need for companies to proactively address potential reputational risks associated with supply chain practices.

Legal representatives: William Bennett KC and Richard Munden (instructed by Wedlake Bell) for the Claimant; Sara Mansoori KC and Aidan Wills (instructed by Kennedys Law LLP) for the Defendant.