.jpg){kind=link}
High Court rules Panorama programme was not defamatory of former HS2 employees
Two former HS2 executives have lost a defamation claim against their former employer after the High Court ruled that a BBC Panorama documentary did not convey a defamatory meaning about them. Andrew Bruce and Douglas Thornton sued HS2 Ltd over the company’s response to allegations aired in the programme, arguing it portrayed them as incompetent and dishonest. Mrs Justice Collins Rice dismissed the claim, finding that an ordinary reasonable viewer would not think seriously the worse of them after watching the broadcast as a whole.
The Broadcast Dispute The case centred on the September 2024 Panorama documentary, HS2: The Railway that Blew Millions. Mr Bruce, a chartered civil engineer, and Mr Thornton, a chartered surveyor, appeared as whistleblowers to expose alleged budget overruns and misleading figures within the high-speed rail project.
In the programme, HS2 Ltd issued a rebuttal stating it did not recognise the allegations and asserted that both men had “failed their probationary periods”. The claimants argued this statement carried a defamatory meaning, suggesting they were dismissed for incompetence and were fabricating their accounts.
The Judicial Approach Mrs Justice Collins Rice took the specific step of watching the entire hour-long documentary as a “single event” before hearing legal arguments. She aimed to determine the “natural and ordinary meaning” conveyed to a reasonable viewer.
Her findings highlighted a stark contrast in production values. The judge noted that the whistleblowers gave “detailed first-hand accounts” and were filmed in a respectful, attentive manner. Conversely, HS2 Ltd’s denials were delivered via a “deadpan” voiceover accompanied by images of empty office chairs.
Why the Claim Failed The court ruled that the defamation claim failed because the broadcast did not substantially harm the claimants’ reputations. Mrs Justice Collins Rice concluded that an ordinary viewer would view HS2 Ltd’s response that it did not recognise the allegations as a “disengaged and conventional evasive formula”.
Regarding the “failed probation” comment, the judge determined that viewers would likely interpret this as a “conventional circumlocution” for the summary dismissal of a whistleblower, rather than proof of incompetence. The judgment stated that believing HS2’s narrative would require a viewer to be “unduly naïve” and “unduly suspicious” of the claimants mindset the average person does not possess.
Ultimately, the court found that the programme’s single meaning was that Mr Bruce and Mr Thornton were presented as whistleblowers raising issues of public concern, and that HS2 Ltd’s responses did not provide a satisfactory answer to their accounts. In that context, the broadcast was not defamatory at common law.