Sims v

Stretch
(1936)
Lewis v Daily
Telegraph
(1964)
Berkoff v
Burchill
(1996)

Published description of an
actor as hideously ugly was
capable of being defamatory.

Charleston v
News Group
Newspaper
Ltd (1995)

A computer-generated photo
appeared to portray television
stars in a pornographic
scenario, but the text of the
attached article contradicted
any defamatory implication.
A verse posted on a notice
board at a golf club appeared
to condemn one of the
members for telling the police
about illegal betting machines
at the club
An amateur golfer was
portrayed in a photograph in
a way which implied that he
advertised chocolate.

Byrne v Dean
(1937)

Tolley v Fry
(1931)

Cassidy v
Daily Mirror
Newspaper
Ltd (1929)

Publishing a photograph
depicting Cassidy and a
young woman announcing
they were engaged. However,
the fact that Mr Cassidy was
still married lead the majority
of CA to recognise that the
words were defamatory of the
existing Mrs Cassidy.

The statement is defamatory meaning Ps

reputation is lowered in the eyes of rightthinking member of society.
The judge will look at the natural and
ordinary meaning if words and ask what a
general reader would ordinarily infer from
them.
GR: Mere abuse do not constitute a
defamatory statement, but this statement
did more than merely injure feelings and
relevant to the Cs career.
A passage cannot be taken in isolation
where other parts negate the effect of the
libel.
The court will look at the particular
defamatory statement in the context of the
entire publication.
In determining whether a publication had a
defamatory meaning, right-thinking
people would be presumed to be condone
rather than condemn informing police of
illegal activity.
Where the words/additional facts do not
carry any defamatory meaning on their
own, but coupled with knowledge of special
facts and circumstances about the
claimant, could result in a negative
inference or perception of the claimant, this
is an example of true innuendo and would
satisfy the meaning of defamatory.
A reasonable person knowing of their
relationship might assume that she had
cohabited with Cassidy outside marriage
defamatory.

Chase v News
Group
Newsletter
Ltd (2002)

A false innuendo is where, even with

knowledge of special facts and
circumstances about the claimant, readers
who know the claimant would not
necessarily form negative perceptions
about the claimant.
Claimant will fail to satisfy the req of
defamatory meaning.

Morgan v
Odhams
Press Ltd
(1971)
Knupffer v
London

It is sufficient if the reasonable person,

having knowledge of the circumstances,
would understand the claimant as referring
to the claimant.
In the case of group definition an
individual within that group can only brg a

An article was defamatory of

Young Russian political party

Express
Newspaper
Ltd (1944)

which had 24 members in

Britain. The plaintiff claimed
that it referred to him.

Hulton v
Jones (1910)

A fictitious newspaper article

was defamatory of a
churchwarden called Artemus
Jones; a barrister of the same
name sued in defamation.

Theaker v
Richardson
(1962)

A husband accidentally
opened and read a letter
which had been addressed to
his wife, and which was
defamatory of her.
Unsealed envelope was
opened and read by an
inquisitive butler in an
admitted breach of duty.
Prior to DA 2013

c/f Huth v
Huth

Slipper v BBC
(1991)

Loutchansky
v Times
Newspapers
Ltd (2001)
McManus v
Beckham
(2002)
Godfrey v
Demon
Internet
(2001)

CA doubted whether the

Slipper test is fair to the
defendant.
The D was an internet service
provider (ISP) and the case
concerned the application of
the defence of innocent
dissemination in s1 of the DA
1996.

Jameel v WSJ
Europe
(2007)

The defendant published an

article claiming that the
claimants company was on a
list of those suspected of
making financial contributions
to terrorism.

Flood v Times
Newspapers
(2012)

The D reported that a

Metropolitan Police detective
was under investigation for
allegedly taking bribes from
Russian exiles in return for
information about extradition

successful defamation action if something

in the publication refers to him or the group
is so small that reference to each member
can be assumed.
It was possible that a jury could conclude
that reasonable person would think the
article referred to the plaintiff. On this
relatively strict test, the P successfully
established the sttmt was defamatory of
him.
Publication would be established provided
it is foreseeable that a third party might be
read the damaging remarks. The fact that
the D did not want a third party to read the
dmg remarks is immaterial.
If the third party had acted improperly and
without authority in reading the material,
publication is not established.
An unauthorised repetition or republication
by a TP will break the c.o.c unless the
statement is published to one who is under
a legal/moral duty to repeat it or the
repetition is foreseeable as natural and
probable consequence of the original
publication.
Each publication of defamatory material
gives rise to a new cause of action.
reform by s.8 of the DA 2013

ISP, although they are not a publisher for

the purposes of liability under defamation.
However, where they have been informed
of the defamatory content appearing on
the internet and being accessible due to
their services, they are expected to take
reasonable care to stop online publication
of the defamatory material.
The Reynolds defence was described as
that of responsible journalism.
The HOLs was of the opinion that the
defence should be applied more
generously. Despite the allegation that the
defendant had neglected to check carefully
the background of the story, the defence
was applied.
The SC unanimously upheld the use of the
defence. The clearest statement of the
ratio can be read in the speech of Lord
Mance, who confirmed the importance of
the careful balancing exercise, between
protection of reputation and freedom of

Alexander v
North Eastern
Railway
(1865)

Chase v News
Group
Newspapers
(2002)
Wakley v
Cooke (1849)

proceedings.
The Reynolds defence was
accepted at first instance, but
failed in the CA, due to
concerns about the Ds efforts
at verification.

expression, undertaken in such cases. The

courts have a role in supporting responsible
journalism.

The C sued for defamation

when the D published that the
C was serving a 3 week
imprisonment sentence (as
opposed to a 14-day
sentence) for failing to pay
the proper train fare.

The D needs to show that imputation in the

statement is substantially true.
The defence of justification succeeded
because the publication was not entirely
inaccurate.

Reynolds defence abolished by DA 2013

The D does not have to prove that every

word he or she published was true. He/she
has to establish the essential or
substantial truth of the sting of the libel.