Sim v Stretch [1936] All ER 1237 (HL)
Facts Both the plaintiffs and defendants were landed Gentry. A third person, Miss Edith Civil, had been employed by both
parties as a housemate and their respective estates. A telegram was sent by the defendants informing them that Edith
had resumed her service with us today. Please send her positions and the money you borrowed also her wages.
The plaintiffs alleged that the suggestion they borrowed money from a house made was defamatory.
Lord With the words in their ordinary signification are capable of being defamatory. Would the words tend
Atkin to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally?
The sting is said to be in the borrowing. Why should a person's character be lowered in anyone's estimation if he or
she borrowed from a domestic servant?
The mere fact of borrowing from a servant bears not the slightest tinge of meanness.
Case Charleston v news group newspaper ltd 1995 2 AC 65 (HL)
name
Facts The defendant’s tabloid newspaper ran a story about a porno computer game - had super imposed the faces of actors
from a tv program neighbors on naked or semi naked engaging in sexual acts
• The game suggested that the plaintiffs had taken part in the production of the game
The lower courts held it was not capable of defamation in either its natural or ordinary meaning or by innuendo
Lord The plaintiffs must have found this deeply offensive and insulting
Bridge
Whether the plaintiffs have any remedy in the tort of defamation on the basis of their pleased claim
Whether a claim in defamation in respect of publication is not considered defamation as a whole but may nevertheless
succeed on the ground that some readers will have read part and that the part considered in isolation is capable of
bearing a defamatory meaning
We know legal innuendo is alleged to arise from extrinsic circumstances known to some readers. The natural and
ordinary meaning to be ascribed to the words of an allegedly defamatory publication is the meaning, including any
inferiority, real meaning which the words would convey. To the mind of the ordinary, reasonable, fair-minded reader.
Although a combination of words may in fact convey different meeting meanings to the minds of different readers. The
jury. In a defamation action applying. The first principle is required to determine the single meaning which the
publication conveyed to the notional reasonable reader, and to base its verdict and any award of damages on the
assumption that this was the one sense in which everyone read it.
Held • The Plaintiff’s claim was mainly based on the assumption that a (large) group of ‘limited readers’
would not read beyond the tabloid’s headline/ picture, thus negating the articles potentially
neutralising effect: [71]
• Yet, ‘The question, defamatory or no, must always be answered by reference to the response of the
ordinary reader to the publication’: [74]
• The described group of ‘limited readers’ could not be said to be the ordinary, reasonable reader: [73]
• Thus, a prominent headline could not found a defamation claim isolated from it’s text, as the
ordinary reader could be presumed to read both: [72]
• On the upside, a Jury may at a later point decide, that said text would not be sufficient to neutralise
the libel: [74]
Key The text of the article may be sufficient to neutralise the libellous implication of a headline or photographic
point publication, even though many readers might take note only of the latter
Lewis v Otago daily times [1964] AC 234 (HL)
Lord Mr Lewis and the company rubber improvement ltd - Lewis is the managing director
Hodson
Facts Two articles appeared on the front page of the respective newspaper in December 1958. The facts leading up to
the publication differed to some extent, but the general effect was the same. The Daily Telegraph action, The
plaintiff Lewis, obtained 25,000. Pounds in the plaintiff company 75,000 and in the Daily Mail action he obtained
17,000, in the company 100,000.
The Court of Appeal ordered a new trial holding that in any event, the damages were so excessive that no
reasonable jury could have awarded such a large figure, and that there was a misdirection on the part of the trial
judge in respect of the meaning of libels
Lord Devlin The natural and ordinary meaning of the words ought, in theory to be the same for the lawyer As for the layman,
because the lawyers first rule of construction is the words are to be given their natural and ordinary meaning as
popularly understood.
S 37 3 - Requirements for. Legal innuendo in the Defamation Act.
Craig v Slater [2020] NZCA 30
, read [1]-[13] then focus on "Issue 2", especially paras [44]-[45])
Facts Mr. Craig was an aspiring politician. From 2011 to 2015, he was the leader of a small political party, the Conservative
Party. Rachel MacGregor was the priest, articulate secretary for Mr. Craig. And attraction developed between the two-
part romantic, impact, sexual. Some textual activity occurred between them on one occasion the night of the 2011
general election. Miss McGregor then came to his senses and sought to revert to a professional relationship. The same
cannot be said for Mr. Craig.
He continued to write Miss McGregor lengthy personal letters and poems. Following McGregor's resignation, she
alleged that Mister Craig sexually harassed her and she had not been paid in full, a mediated confidential settlement
insured in which Mr. Craig agreed to pay her. She with drew her sexual harassment claim, information about his conduct
towards her. Was linked to Mr. Slater, a conservative activist. Mr. Slater, his sources were to a party board member. And
a friend of Mrs. Macgregor's.
Kos P Issue two: Did the High Court err in finding certain meanings not defamatory?
We approve adoption of the more than minor harm requirement in New Zealand common law for three reasons.
1. damage to reputation is an in central element of the cause of action of defamation. Principle and proof should
not be confused
2. Threshold of this kind as necessary consequence of the right to freedom of expression protected by section 14.
The court agrees with reasoning in Selman v Slater.
3. We consider the requisite threshold standard more than minor harm was correctly identified in the same
decision and is to be referred to a higher standard based on the word serious. [at 68]
Flood paras [1]-[10]
Facts C was a Detective Sergeant with the Metropolitan Police Service’s (“MPS”) Extradition Unit. The Times reported: (a)
the fact that an allegation had been made by an unidentified person to the MPS to the effect that C was implicated in
receiving bribes from a Russian oligarch in return for bribes; (b) the fact that the allegation was being investigated; and
(c) information which added credence to the unidentified source’s allegation.
C sued in regard to the initial print publication of 2 June 2006 and in regard to the publication of the same article
on The Times website from that date onwards. On 5 September 2007 the MPS informed The Times that its
investigation had concluded that C had no case to answer. However, The Times continued to publish the article in its
original form without updating it to reflect this development.
The Times relied upon defences of Reynolds privilege and justification.
The trial of the Reynolds defence was presided over by Mr Justice Tugendhat without a jury. He held that the
publications which took place up to 5 September 2007 were protected by the Reynolds defence because The Times‘
journalism had been responsible and the subject of the article had concerned a matter of public interest. However, those
publications which took place after the MPS had informed The Times that the C had no case to answer were not
protected because The Times ought, if it wanted to continue to publish the article, to have updated it in order to reflect
the C’s exoneration by the MPS.
The Times appealed against the first instance decision concerning the publications which took place after 5 September
2007. C cross-appealed against the decision regarding the publications which took place prior to that date.
Chase v Newspaper group LTD
Facts Appeal. An article was published saying a nurse was suspected of overdoseing terminally Illinois youngsters with
painkillers. It identified the children concerned as nine boys and nine girls aged between 8 weeks and 17 years. The
article described the nurse concerned as being unmarried and in her 40s. It did not name her, but it is the claimants
case that the circumstances were such that even at that early stage a significant number of readers would identify her.
Lord The conduct rule
Justice
Brooke The repetition rule
A successful plea of justification is an absolute defence to a claim in defamation, because it shows, as a matter of
objective fact, that a claimant is not entitled to unblemished reputation, which he/ she claims to have been damaged
by the publication of which the complaint is made.
For such a plea to succeed. There must be finding on the merits by a court on evidence that the defamatory sting of
the allegation. Is true as a matter of fact. The defendant does not have to prove. Every word published was true. Only
has to establish essential or substantial truth of the sting of the defamation. The burden of proving justification rests
on the defendant. [35]
The standard of proof is on a balance of probabilities. The more improbable an allegation, the stronger must be the.
Evidence that it did. Occur before. On the balance of probabilities, its occurrence will be established.
1. That the claimant has in fact committed a serious act, in this case murder
2. There are reasonable grounds to suspect that he or she has committed an act
3. There are grounds for investigating whether the P has been responsible for such an act
Facts Both the plaintiffs and defendants were landed Gentry. A third person, Miss Edith Civil, had been employed by both
parties as a housemate and their respective estates. A telegram was sent by the defendants informing them that Edith
had resumed her service with us today. Please send her positions and the money you borrowed also her wages.
The plaintiffs alleged that the suggestion they borrowed money from a house made was defamatory.
Lord With the words in their ordinary signification are capable of being defamatory. Would the words tend
Atkin to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally?
The sting is said to be in the borrowing. Why should a person's character be lowered in anyone's estimation if he or
she borrowed from a domestic servant?
The mere fact of borrowing from a servant bears not the slightest tinge of meanness.
Case Charleston v news group newspaper ltd 1995 2 AC 65 (HL)
name
Facts The defendant’s tabloid newspaper ran a story about a porno computer game - had super imposed the faces of actors
from a tv program neighbors on naked or semi naked engaging in sexual acts
• The game suggested that the plaintiffs had taken part in the production of the game
The lower courts held it was not capable of defamation in either its natural or ordinary meaning or by innuendo
Lord The plaintiffs must have found this deeply offensive and insulting
Bridge
Whether the plaintiffs have any remedy in the tort of defamation on the basis of their pleased claim
Whether a claim in defamation in respect of publication is not considered defamation as a whole but may nevertheless
succeed on the ground that some readers will have read part and that the part considered in isolation is capable of
bearing a defamatory meaning
We know legal innuendo is alleged to arise from extrinsic circumstances known to some readers. The natural and
ordinary meaning to be ascribed to the words of an allegedly defamatory publication is the meaning, including any
inferiority, real meaning which the words would convey. To the mind of the ordinary, reasonable, fair-minded reader.
Although a combination of words may in fact convey different meeting meanings to the minds of different readers. The
jury. In a defamation action applying. The first principle is required to determine the single meaning which the
publication conveyed to the notional reasonable reader, and to base its verdict and any award of damages on the
assumption that this was the one sense in which everyone read it.
Held • The Plaintiff’s claim was mainly based on the assumption that a (large) group of ‘limited readers’
would not read beyond the tabloid’s headline/ picture, thus negating the articles potentially
neutralising effect: [71]
• Yet, ‘The question, defamatory or no, must always be answered by reference to the response of the
ordinary reader to the publication’: [74]
• The described group of ‘limited readers’ could not be said to be the ordinary, reasonable reader: [73]
• Thus, a prominent headline could not found a defamation claim isolated from it’s text, as the
ordinary reader could be presumed to read both: [72]
• On the upside, a Jury may at a later point decide, that said text would not be sufficient to neutralise
the libel: [74]
Key The text of the article may be sufficient to neutralise the libellous implication of a headline or photographic
point publication, even though many readers might take note only of the latter
Lewis v Otago daily times [1964] AC 234 (HL)
Lord Mr Lewis and the company rubber improvement ltd - Lewis is the managing director
Hodson
Facts Two articles appeared on the front page of the respective newspaper in December 1958. The facts leading up to
the publication differed to some extent, but the general effect was the same. The Daily Telegraph action, The
plaintiff Lewis, obtained 25,000. Pounds in the plaintiff company 75,000 and in the Daily Mail action he obtained
17,000, in the company 100,000.
The Court of Appeal ordered a new trial holding that in any event, the damages were so excessive that no
reasonable jury could have awarded such a large figure, and that there was a misdirection on the part of the trial
judge in respect of the meaning of libels
Lord Devlin The natural and ordinary meaning of the words ought, in theory to be the same for the lawyer As for the layman,
because the lawyers first rule of construction is the words are to be given their natural and ordinary meaning as
popularly understood.
S 37 3 - Requirements for. Legal innuendo in the Defamation Act.
Craig v Slater [2020] NZCA 30
, read [1]-[13] then focus on "Issue 2", especially paras [44]-[45])
Facts Mr. Craig was an aspiring politician. From 2011 to 2015, he was the leader of a small political party, the Conservative
Party. Rachel MacGregor was the priest, articulate secretary for Mr. Craig. And attraction developed between the two-
part romantic, impact, sexual. Some textual activity occurred between them on one occasion the night of the 2011
general election. Miss McGregor then came to his senses and sought to revert to a professional relationship. The same
cannot be said for Mr. Craig.
He continued to write Miss McGregor lengthy personal letters and poems. Following McGregor's resignation, she
alleged that Mister Craig sexually harassed her and she had not been paid in full, a mediated confidential settlement
insured in which Mr. Craig agreed to pay her. She with drew her sexual harassment claim, information about his conduct
towards her. Was linked to Mr. Slater, a conservative activist. Mr. Slater, his sources were to a party board member. And
a friend of Mrs. Macgregor's.
Kos P Issue two: Did the High Court err in finding certain meanings not defamatory?
We approve adoption of the more than minor harm requirement in New Zealand common law for three reasons.
1. damage to reputation is an in central element of the cause of action of defamation. Principle and proof should
not be confused
2. Threshold of this kind as necessary consequence of the right to freedom of expression protected by section 14.
The court agrees with reasoning in Selman v Slater.
3. We consider the requisite threshold standard more than minor harm was correctly identified in the same
decision and is to be referred to a higher standard based on the word serious. [at 68]
Flood paras [1]-[10]
Facts C was a Detective Sergeant with the Metropolitan Police Service’s (“MPS”) Extradition Unit. The Times reported: (a)
the fact that an allegation had been made by an unidentified person to the MPS to the effect that C was implicated in
receiving bribes from a Russian oligarch in return for bribes; (b) the fact that the allegation was being investigated; and
(c) information which added credence to the unidentified source’s allegation.
C sued in regard to the initial print publication of 2 June 2006 and in regard to the publication of the same article
on The Times website from that date onwards. On 5 September 2007 the MPS informed The Times that its
investigation had concluded that C had no case to answer. However, The Times continued to publish the article in its
original form without updating it to reflect this development.
The Times relied upon defences of Reynolds privilege and justification.
The trial of the Reynolds defence was presided over by Mr Justice Tugendhat without a jury. He held that the
publications which took place up to 5 September 2007 were protected by the Reynolds defence because The Times‘
journalism had been responsible and the subject of the article had concerned a matter of public interest. However, those
publications which took place after the MPS had informed The Times that the C had no case to answer were not
protected because The Times ought, if it wanted to continue to publish the article, to have updated it in order to reflect
the C’s exoneration by the MPS.
The Times appealed against the first instance decision concerning the publications which took place after 5 September
2007. C cross-appealed against the decision regarding the publications which took place prior to that date.
Chase v Newspaper group LTD
Facts Appeal. An article was published saying a nurse was suspected of overdoseing terminally Illinois youngsters with
painkillers. It identified the children concerned as nine boys and nine girls aged between 8 weeks and 17 years. The
article described the nurse concerned as being unmarried and in her 40s. It did not name her, but it is the claimants
case that the circumstances were such that even at that early stage a significant number of readers would identify her.
Lord The conduct rule
Justice
Brooke The repetition rule
A successful plea of justification is an absolute defence to a claim in defamation, because it shows, as a matter of
objective fact, that a claimant is not entitled to unblemished reputation, which he/ she claims to have been damaged
by the publication of which the complaint is made.
For such a plea to succeed. There must be finding on the merits by a court on evidence that the defamatory sting of
the allegation. Is true as a matter of fact. The defendant does not have to prove. Every word published was true. Only
has to establish essential or substantial truth of the sting of the defamation. The burden of proving justification rests
on the defendant. [35]
The standard of proof is on a balance of probabilities. The more improbable an allegation, the stronger must be the.
Evidence that it did. Occur before. On the balance of probabilities, its occurrence will be established.
1. That the claimant has in fact committed a serious act, in this case murder
2. There are reasonable grounds to suspect that he or she has committed an act
3. There are grounds for investigating whether the P has been responsible for such an act
