Aluko v Barton [2025] EWHC 853 (KB)
High Court Clarifies Defamatory Meaning of Tweets in Aluko v Barton [2025] EWHC 853 (KB)
In April 2025, the High Court (King’s Bench Division) handed down a judgment on preliminary issues in the libel case of Eniola Aluko v Joseph (“Joey”) Barton. The claimant, Eniola Aluko, is a prominent former England footballer and media pundit, and the defendant, Joey Barton, is a former professional footballer and manager. The dispute arose from posts made by Mr Barton on the social media platform X (formerly Twitter) in January 2024, which Ms Aluko claimed were defamatory. The High Court was asked to determine several key issues about these posts as a preliminary matter (before any full trial on liability or damages). Specifically, Mr Justice Lavender considered: (1) the natural and ordinary meaning of the posts; (2) any innuendo meaning (a meaning conveyed to readers with additional knowledge) of the first post; (3) whether the meanings were statements of fact or opinion; and (4) whether the posts, in those meanings, were defamatory of Ms Aluko.
The Allegedly Defamatory Posts
Two posts were at the center of the case (with an additional related post providing context). Both were published on Mr Barton’s X/Twitter account over a two-day period and concerned remarks about Ms Aluko’s past actions:
“Victim Card” Post (17 January 2024, morning): In the first post (nicknamed the Victim Card Post), Mr Barton wrote: “Cry me a f*ing river… I was waiting for the victim card to be played. Eni, sorry luv, you’re dreadful as a pundit. Tone deaf, can’t count and most importantly you know next to nothing about men’s football. You should have ran off to a desert island after your ‘Arteta phoning Pep to put a bid in’ nonsense. Everyone is laughing at you. Not just me.”
This message, containing an expletive and various insults, was posted alongside a preview of a video in which Ms Aluko spoke about online abuse and harassment of women in football broadcasting . The clear insinuation was that Ms Aluko was “playing the victim” in response to criticism. (Ms Aluko would later argue that this post provided important context for interpreting the next post.)
First Post (17 January 2024, afternoon):
A few hours later, Mr Barton posted another message reading “Surprise surprise …” followed by three clown-face emojis and a crown emoji . Below this text, he attached a screenshot of a six-year-old Guardian news article from August 2017 about Ms Aluko’s past accusations of racism and bullying within the Football Association (FA) . The article’s headline was “FA faces calls for fresh investigation after Eni Aluko’s claims of racism and bullying”, and it reported on calls for an inquiry into how the FA handled Ms Aluko’s complaints. By resurfacing this old story with a sarcastic “Surprise surprise” and clown emojis, Mr Barton appeared to ridicule the situation – suggesting it was predictable and absurd. Ms Aluko contended this post implied she was again making unfounded complaints (essentially accusing her of habitually playing the “victim card” or “race card”), especially when read in light of the earlier Victim Card Post.
Second Post (19 January 2024):
Two days later, Mr Barton posted yet another message targeting Ms Aluko. This post stated: “More has come to light about poor, little Eni Aluko. Dad was a Nigerian Senator. Dodgy money. Ran to England. Massive house in Wentworth. 3 Rolls Royce’s [sic]. St Mary’s in Ascot private education. Lawyer. Race card player.” . Under this text was a preview of a BBC News link titled “Aluko apologises for furlough posts”, referring to a 2020 story where Ms Aluko had apologised for remarks criticising people on the UK furlough pandemic scheme. In this Second Post, Mr Barton effectively listed aspects of Ms Aluko’s privileged background (wealthy family, expensive education and lifestyle) and then labeled her a “Race card player.” The tone was derisive. The implication drawn by Ms Aluko was that Mr Barton was calling her a hypocrite (for criticising others’ “entitlement” despite her own advantages) and accusing her of cynically using her race to gain sympathy or advantage.
These posts – particularly the First and Second Posts – became the subject of the libel claim. Ms Aluko alleged that the posts defamed her by suggesting she habitually makes false claims of racism/bullying (i.e. plays the victim or race card) and is hypocritical and dishonest . Mr Barton, in turn, denied defamation, maintaining that his statements were either true or mere opinion, and in any event not defamatory in meaning.
Key Legal Issues Before the Court
At the preliminary issues trial (heard by Mr Justice Lavender in December 2024), the court did not decide whether Mr Barton’s posts were true or whether any defences applied. Instead, it focused on foundational questions common in defamation cases, which would shape how the case proceeds:
- Meaning – Natural and Ordinary Meaning: What meaning would the hypothetical ordinary reasonable reader naturally take from the words (and emojis) in the First Post and the Second Post? This involves reading the posts in their full context (including any linked material visible to readers) but without special knowledge.
- Meaning – Innuendo: Whether the First Post conveyed any additional defamatory meaning to readers who had extra knowledge, namely those who had also seen the Victim Card Post earlier that day. (In defamation law, an innuendo meaning is one that is not explicit from the words alone but arises due to extrinsic facts known to some readers.)
- Fact or Opinion: Whether the meanings of each post (as found by the court) amounted to statements of fact or opinions. An allegation of fact asserts a concrete truth about someone (which could be proven true or false), whereas a statement of opinion is a value judgment or commentary that an honest person could hold based on facts. The classification is significant because it dictates possible defences (e.g. honest opinion defence applies only to opinions, while truth must be proven for factual allegations).
- Defamatory Character: Whether the meaning identified is defamatory at common law – i.e., whether it would tend to damage Ms Aluko’s reputation in the eyes of reasonable people. In essence, a statement is defamatory if it imputes something that would make people think worse of the claimant or shun/avoid them. The judge applied the established test: a publication is defamatory if it (a) attributes to the claimant conduct or qualities that are widely disapproved of in society, and (b) is sufficiently serious to cause harm to reputation.
By resolving these issues now, the court set the stage for the next steps. If the meanings were found not defamatory, that part of the claim would end. If they were opinions (not facts), Mr Barton would not have to prove their truth but could rely on an opinion-based defence (if the opinion was one a person could honestly hold). If they were facts and defamatory, Mr Barton would potentially have to prove they are true (a high bar, especially for implications about someone’s motives).
Court’s Findings: The First Post
Meaning (Natural and Ordinary):
The court found that the ordinary meaning of the First Post was relatively limited and not as defamatory as Ms Aluko alleged. Mr Justice Lavender held that the First Post meant “it was both predictable and laughable that the Football Association had faced calls for a fresh investigation into its handling of the claimant’s claims of racism and bullying.” In other words, an average reader would understand Mr Barton to be commenting on the Football Association’s situation – that renewed calls (by others) for an investigation into Ms Aluko’s 2017 racism/bullying allegations were absurd yet unsurprising . Notably, this meaning did not directly criticise Ms Aluko personally. It ridiculed the scenario (and perhaps the FA or those making the calls) rather than explicitly accusing Ms Aluko of lying. The judge rejected Ms Aluko’s argument that the post’s ordinary meaning accused her of dishonesty or a pattern of false complaints. He also disagreed with Mr Barton’s contention that the post was only about the FA and had no reference to Ms Aluko – clearly the context was her claims, even if the ridicule was aimed at the calls for investigation .
Meaning (Innuendo):
Importantly for Ms Aluko, the court found that readers who had additional context – specifically, those who also saw the earlier Victim Card Post that morning – would have taken a more pointed defamatory meaning from the First Post. Combining the sarcastic “Surprise surprise… 🤡🤡🤡 👑” with the knowledge of Mr Barton’s “Cry me a river” rant, the judge held the First Post conveyed an innuendo meaning that Ms Aluko had cynically exploited claims of racism and bullying for her own ends. In the judge’s words, the First Post (with innuendo) meant “In making claims of racism and bullying in respect of her participation in the England women’s football team the claimant cynically sought to exploit her status as an alleged victim of racism and bullying, her claim to be a victim of racism and bullying was unwarranted and it was both predictable and laughable that she acted in this way.” This essentially captures the notion of “playing the race card” – without using that phrase, the meaning is that Ms Aluko unjustifiably portrayed herself as a victim of racism/bullying to benefit herself. Unlike the natural meaning, this innuendo squarely impugns Ms Aluko’s integrity, suggesting her 2017 complaints were made in bad faith.
Fact or Opinion:
The judge decided that both the natural meaning and the innuendo meaning of the First Post were statements of opinion, not fact. An ordinary reader would recognise Mr Barton’s post as commentary on a news item, given its tone and the use of an old article as context. For instance, calling a situation “predictable and laughable” is a value judgment, not a factual report. Even the innuendo that Ms Aluko “cynically sought to exploit” her victim status was deemed Mr Barton’s view or inference rather than an assertion of objective fact. The judgment notes that Mr Barton was essentially offering his personal reaction to Ms Aluko’s racism claims (especially signaled by phrases like “Surprise surprise” and his prior “victim card” remark). There was no specific undisclosed fact being alleged about her conduct beyond his evaluative assertion. Thus, the First Post in both meanings was treated as an expression of opinion.
Defamatory?
In its natural meaning, the First Post was not defamatory of Ms Aluko. Since that meaning was focused on the FA’s response and did not disparage Ms Aluko, it had no tendency to lower her reputation. The judge explicitly found the natural meaning “is not critical of the claimant”. However, the innuendo meaning of the First Post was found to be defamatory. Accusing someone of cynically advancing an unwarranted claim of racism clearly crosses the threshold of seriousness – it implies dishonorable conduct that society would condemn. Mr Justice Lavender noted that alleging Ms Aluko engaged in such cynical behavior would undoubtedly affect how people view her, satisfying the common law test for defamation. In summary, Ms Aluko cannot succeed on the First Post’s ordinary meaning (since it isn’t defamatory), but she can proceed on the innuendo meaning which portrays her as acting in bad faith.
Court’s Findings: The Second Post
Meaning:
The Second Post was unequivocally about Ms Aluko herself, and the court largely agreed that it carried two stinging imputations: hypocrisy and playing the “race card.” Mr Justice Lavender found that the Second Post’s ordinary reader would understand it to mean: (1) “The claimant was a hypocrite for saying that the furlough scheme created a ‘do-nothing’ mentality and a ‘culture of entitlement’ when she was herself the beneficiary of dodgy money obtained by her father, a Nigerian senator who ran to England, which has paid for her to have a massive house, three Rolls Royce cars and a private education.” and (2) “The claimant has on at least one occasion cynically sought to exploit her race.” In simpler terms, Mr Barton’s post suggested that Eniola Aluko criticised others for “entitlement” despite leading a life of privilege funded by questionable money, which makes her a hypocrite, and that she has also “played the race card” at least once for personal advantage.
This was somewhat narrower than Ms Aluko’s pleaded meaning (she had argued the post implied she persistently made false racism allegations for unjustified benefit). The judge did not adopt the more extreme formulation that “persistently” or that her father was “corrupt” (words Ms Aluko’s side had used). Instead, he limited the “race card” allegation to at least one occasion and didn’t infer a motive like gaining unjustified advantages beyond exploiting her race. He also declined to label it outright “dishonest” or criminal, sticking to the phrasing that she acted cynically in using her race . Nonetheless, this meaning is still strongly defamatory.
Fact or Opinion:
The Second Post was found to contain a mix of opinion and fact. The court drew a line between the two implications in the meaning:
The allegation of hypocrisy was characterised as opinion. This is because Mr Barton was essentially giving his view that Ms Aluko’s criticism of others (regarding “culture of entitlement” and furlough) was inconsistent with her own circumstances. The post itself listed factual elements of her background (wealthy upbringing, etc.) as the basis and then delivered the value-laden punchline that it made her a hypocrite. An ordinary reader would see this as Mr Barton’s evaluative commentary on those facts . Indeed, the judgment noted that the “hypocrisy” part was clearly the defendant’s view drawn from stated facts .
The statement that Ms Aluko is a “Race card player” – i.e. that she had exploited her race at least once – was deemed a statement of fact . Unlike the hypocrisy jibe, this phrase was not presented as a subjective opinion with reasons given, but rather came at the end of a list of ostensibly factual assertions about her background. There was “nothing to indicate” to the reader that “Race card player” was meant as an opinion or commentary; it would be taken as an assertion about something she has done. In other words, Mr Barton stated it as a fact that Ms Aluko has “played the race card.” The judge also pointed out that this phrase, while derogatory, lacks a clear basis or explanation in the post – making it a bare allegation of cynical behavior . As a result, it is treated as a factual imputation (one that Mr Barton would need to prove true if he were to defend it as truthful).
Defamatory? The Second Post’s meaning was plainly defamatory. Mr Barton’s own legal team conceded that the hypocrisy accusation was defamatory at common law. Accusing someone of gross hypocrisy in their professional commentary is something likely to cause serious reputational harm. Furthermore, the court found that the “race card” allegation was also defamatory, as it accuses Ms Aluko of cynically exploiting her race – conduct that right-thinking members of society would surely condemn. There was little doubt that readers would think much less of Ms Aluko if they believed this assertion. Thus, both aspects of the Second Post’s meaning met the defamation threshold. In summary, the Second Post was held to be defamatory in both respects: Mr Barton’s post conveyed one defamatory opinion (hypocrisy) and one defamatory factual allegation (playing the race card).
Conclusion
While Mr Barton succeeded in characterising some of his remarks as opinion, the court upheld the gravamen of Ms Aluko’s complaint. The ruling confirms that even informal posts, when they impute serious misconduct such as dishonesty or bad faith, will attract close judicial scrutiny. In particular, the finding that Mr Barton made a defamatory factual allegation,one he may struggle to prove, marks this as a significant early victory for Ms Aluko.
If you believe that you have been defamed online or elsewhere, or if you are facing a defamation claim, Carruthers Law can help. Our specialist defamation solicitors have extensive experience in defending and pursuing complex libel and slander cases. Please contact Carruthers Law today on 0151 541 2040 or email us to discuss how we can assist you. We offer expert advice with professionalism, discretion, and results-driven representation.