Auladin v Shaikh & Ors

On 24 January 2013 a hearing took place in order to obtain rulings on the meaning of the words complained of in this libel action. There was originally an application by the Defendants for a determination under CPR PD 53 4.1 to the effect that the words were incapable of bearing any meaning defamatory of the Claimant. Once the parties had agreed that the trial should take place without a jury, however, it was decided that a judge should now determine the actual meaning of the words (effectively as a preliminary issue).

The words complained of are contained in a statement issued on 17 November 2011 by the Board of Trustees of the Muslim Community and Education Centre (“MCEC”) in Palmers Green, following the Claimant’s resignation as its Chairman two weeks earlier. There had been a disagreement at a Board meeting on 2 November 2011 over an issue which had arisen in connection with the proposed appointment of Mrs Saqibah Sheikh as an additional Trustee. Her name had been put forward by the MCEC’s Women’s Committee. It seems that the Claimant, Mr Auladin, objected to the proposed appointment on the ground that she is a relative of three existing Trustees, namely the Defendants in this action. They are Mr Talat Shaikh (her father), Yasir Shaikh (her cousin) and Sabir Shaikh (her uncle). He took the view that three members from one family was enough. He thought such dominance was not in keeping with modern standards of good governance. It seems that he was asking that the existing Trustees should exercise their judgment as to whether those nominated should be appointed, whereas the Defendants thought that whoever had been nominated should be appointed. At all events, certain remarks were made at the meeting (according to Mr Auladin) to the effect that there would have been no Palmers Green Mosque had it not been for the Shaikh family.

The following day, regarding these observations as disrespectful, Mr Auladin tendered his resignation by email, which was accepted by a letter dated 10 November. This was in conciliatory terms and spoke appreciatively of Mr Auladin’s work on behalf of the Mosque (he having been a Trustee since 1999 and Chairman from 2006).

It seems that by 11 November rumours had begun to circulate to the effect that Mr Auladin had resigned for some reason(s) other than the true one. He therefore decided to make a short oral statement before members of the Mosque on 11 November, explaining the position as he saw it. Following a meeting of the Trustees on 16 November, at which its terms were approved for publication, the statement which forms the subject-matter of this libel claim was released and communicated to all members of the Mosque, by various means including email, on or about 18 November.

It is necessary for the purposes of this judgment to set out the terms of the statement in full:

“The MCEC Charity was established approximately 18 years ago and mashallah we have grown into a beautiful diverse community of British Muslims who wish to promote peace and harmony. We must be very careful to avoid fitna within the mosque and we urge you to take heed of the ayah of the Qur’an in surah Al Araf 7:85.

… ‘Oh my people! Serve Allah, you have no god other than He. Indeed a clear proof has come to you from your Lord. So give just weight and measure and diminish not to people their things, and make no mischief on the earth after it has been set in good order. That is to your own good, if you do truly believe. And do not lie in ambush by every path [of life] seeking to overawe or to hinder those who believe from the path of Allah, nor seek to make the path crooked. Remember, how you were once few, and then he multiplied you, and keep in mind what was the end of the mischief-makers. And if there are some among you who believe in the message that I bear while some do not believe, have patience till Allah should judge between us. He is the best of those who judge.’

Following the resignation of the Chairman Reshard Auladin last week we feel it has been an unsettling situation for everyone at MCEC and we would now like to call for stillness, calm and respect for one another to return to this House of Allah.

Members of the Shaikh family have been Founding Trustees of the MCEC charity and have been involved in the work of this Masjid for almost two decades. All the Trustees (both Shaikh and non-Shaikh) have served the Masjid and the Musallis with sincerity, integrity and with no personal benefit. The fact that the Shaikh family have been Trustees has never been an issue for contention until now. What is ironic is that the Chairman’s main reason for resigning was because we all wished to expand the Board of Trustees by adding FOUR new members. We had all agreed to follow the democratic process, laid down by the Chairman, and upon announcement of the result he backed out.

N.B. The family Shaikh did not choose or vote in the selection process of the TWO new female Trustees (two year term period), which was done democratically and solely by the Women’s Committee.

MCEC Trust has been strong by having a small but dedicated team always making decisions by the democratic process, and abandoning this for a dictatorial system would be disastrous for the future of this Charity. We will take the next few months to reflect and change our organisational structure to better suit the 21^st century and Islam.

We would request that all Musallis and stakeholders of this Masjid stand beside the Trustees of this Masjid as Brothers and Sisters in Islam to ensure the tranquillity and peace returns to our beautiful Masjid.

‘Our Lord has knowledge of all things and in Allah we put our trust.’ Al Araf 7:89”

The natural and ordinary meanings pleaded at paragraph 6 of the particulars of claim are as follows, namely:

“ … that the Claimant had resigned as Chairman and trustee of the MCEC because:

(a)

he was opposed to expanding the number of trustees,

(b)

having himself laid out a democratic process for expanding the number of trustees he was not prepared to abide by the result of that process, and

(c)

he had wished to, and had been running (or trying to run) the Mosque in a dictatorial manner but would not be able to do so in the future.”

Additionally there is an innuendo pleaded to the effect that “ … the Claimant had lied about the reasons for his resignation”.

I am invited by Mr David Price QC, on behalf of the Defendants, to rule that the words complained of do not bear any of the meanings pleaded or any meaning defamatory of the Claimant. If that submission succeeds, he invites me to grant summary judgment to his clients.

The principles to be applied by a judge determining meaning in a libel action, whether at trial or by way of preliminary issue, are familiar and uncontroversial. As requested by Mr McCormick QC, appearing on behalf of Mr Auladin, I read the words themselves before turning to the parties’ respective submissions. This was with a view to approximating as closely as possible to the position of the hypothetical reasonable reader. There is obviously a degree of artificiality about this, since there may be some cultural barriers which make it more difficult to place myself in the shoes of a reasonable reader who is a member of the Palmers Green Mosque. I have not, however, found this especially problematic on the relatively straightforward facts as they have been presented.

Reference was made to the guidance given by the Court of Appeal in such cases as Skuse v Granada Television [1996] EMLR 278, 285-7 (per Sir Thomas Bingham MR), Gillick v Brook Advisory Centres [2001] EWCA Civ 1263 at [7] (per Lord Phillips MR) and Jeynes v News Magazines Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 130 at [14] (per Sir Anthony Clarke MR). I bear those well in mind.

It has long been recognised that, when determining meaning, the court should not be confined by the pleaded meanings of the parties. A claimant’s meaning is simply to be taken as the high-water mark of possible meanings and the court is entitled to find a meaning independently of the pleadings (provided it is not a meaning more serious than that so pleaded): see e.g. the discussion by Diplock LJ in Slim v Daily Telegraph [1968] 2 QB 157.

I do not accept that the words convey any meaning to the effect that Mr Auladin had behaved in a way that was undemocratic or dictatorial. He is described as having resigned when the election process for new Trustees yielded a result of which he did not approve. That is not in any way undemocratic. He was bowing to the wish of the majority, but felt unable to go along with it (for the reasons he had given). I do not believe that description of what he did to be defamatory. Nor would it be defamatory of him merely to say that he was opposed to increasing the number of Trustees.

Mr McCormick emphasised the following sentence:

“MCEC Trust has been strong by having a small but dedicated team always making decisions by the democratic process, and abandoning this for a dictatorial system would be disastrous for the future of this Charity.”

It is to be noted, of course, that Mr Auladin would have been one of the “dedicated team”. I take this sentence simply to be underlining the value of a democratic procedure for the Trust. Furthermore, the words “would be disastrous for the future” make clear that the writer was contemplating some future possibility or hypothesis (which was to be avoided) rather than making any criticism of Mr Auladin’s past conduct.

It is important to note also, as part of the context, that the words complained of make clear that all the Trustees “have served the Masjid and the Musallis with sincerity, integrity and with no personal benefit”. That, too, plainly includes Mr Auladin. Against that background, when it is alleged that Mr Auladin “backed out”, I do not take that to be signifying a rejection of the democratic process or an allegation that he failed, in some way, to comply with a pre-existing obligation. It is consistent with the interpretation at which I arrived above; that is to say, that he chose to resign because he did not approve of the majority decision. “Backing out” can cover a dignified withdrawal and does not, in my view, in the present context, impute a rejection of the democratic process as such.

Although the initial letter of complaint referred to Mr Auladin as having been accused of hypocrisy, that is not an allegation which found its way into the pleaded meanings. Moreover, for the reasons I have already explained, I do not read the words themselves as making any such charge.

I cannot accept that any reasonable reader of the November statement, having received it as a member of the Palmers Green Mosque, would have thought the worse of Mr Auladin. I believe that the typical fair-minded reader would be likely to feel regret at his resignation. Such a person might agree or disagree with Mr Auladin’s view on the election of the additional Trustee but, either way, I do not see why his reputation, or the esteem in which he has hitherto been held, should have been diminished by the incident or by the statement itself.

As to the innuendo meaning, it was pleaded on the basis that between 3 November 2011 and the date of publication of the words complained of Mr Auladin had told many members of the MCEC of the real reason for his resignation. This would have included his statement in the Mosque. There is no definitive version available of what Mr Auladin said in the Mosque on 11 November 2011. Objection was taken to a document which, although described as a “transcript”, consisted in part of an incomplete record or summary based on the recollection of some unidentified person(s). Be that as it may, I am not persuaded that any reasonable person who had heard or knew of his explanation for his resignation would, upon reading the statement, have decided that he must have been lying when he gave his reasons. There is no inconsistency, in my view, between the explanation Mr Auladin would have given to the members of the Mosque on 11 November, about his objection to adding a “further family member” to the Board of Trustees, and the statement that “ … upon announcement of the result he backed out”. All he was doing on 11 November, at least so far as the evidence goes, was explaining his reasons for “backing out”.

Since I have found the words not to be defamatory, either in their natural and ordinary meaning or by way of innuendo, it seems to me that the logical conclusion is that I should grant summary judgment to the Defendants and dismiss the claim.