Sub-topic

Case
Facts
Sunanansingh v At a public meeting D
Ramkerising said Ps sister-in-law
was living with him and
pregnant for him. P was
banished from his caste.
Allen v Miller Ds words alleged that P
had a VD althought they
did not literally mean
that.

Murray v
Williams

Jones v Jones

D accused P of having
consumption and said
his wife and family had
it too.

Held
Principle
No Slander Slander needs proof
b/c no special of special damage.
damage.
Loss of friends will
not suffice.
Defamation
by context

The court must

consider the place
and circumstances,
in which the words
are used.

No actionable Words capable of

slander
defamation but the
rule only covered
VDs.

Jordan v The
Advocate

D said principal had

Words not
committed adultery with actionable per
the married school
se
cleaner.
D said Sr. Dr.s too busy
playing golf to consult
with Jr. Dr.s about
patients. P was the only
consultant who saw
patients and played golf.

The words did not

disparage Ps
capacity as a
principal
Reference to P
neednt be direct,
eg. by name. It will
suffice if P is
identifiable.

Ramkhelawan
v Motilal

D called Mrs. P a nasty

whore and prostitute and

The defence of
mere vulgar abuse

Defence of
mere vulgar

Other
The loss must be the
legal and natural
consequence of the
defamation.
The test to be
applied is not that of
the school teacher
but that of the
reasonable man in
the canepeice where
the words were said.
Imputations of
illnesses other than
VDs will not be
actionable under
slander.
At common law the
disparagement must
be in the way of Ps
profession or trade.
It matter not whether
the reference to P
was intended or
whether D knew the
special fact which
might lead people to
think of P.
Once defamation is
established it will be

False or
Popular
innuendo

offered dates as to when

men visited her.

abuse must
fail.

Bryne v Dean

P alleged that D had

posted a sign accusing
him of being a police
informer.

No
defamation

Lewis v Daily
Telegraph

D alleged that P was

being investigated by
the fraud squad.

Bonaby v
Nassau
Guardian

D published that P, an
RM, was involved in a
drug investigation but
had not accepted any
payoffs.

No
defamation

Griffiths v
Dawson

D accused P of being a
criminal and having
sabotaged his life by
blackballing him.

No
defamation

Maxwell v
Forde & St.
John

D accused lawyers
running for elections of
treason for representing
organization claiming
countrys prized

Accusation of
treason not
defamatory
but
imputation of

will fail where D

attempts to prove
the truth of his
statement.
Right-thinking
members of the
general public
would not think less
of P

irrelevant that D did

not intend to defame
P.

It is not sufficient for

the defamation to
injure Ps reputation
in the eyes of a
select group of
people.
The ordinary man
falls between the
extreme of unusually
suspicious and
unusually nave.
The article clearly
Where the words
said P had not taken clearly state one
any bribes so the
thing the court will
reasonable man
not infer something
would have no
to the contrary.
reason to think so.
An action for
However, where the
defamation cannnot abuse impute an
be brought on the
actual crime it will
basis of mere
be actionable.
vulgar abuse alone.

property and said they

would become fat cats.
Bacchus v
Bacchus

True or
innocent
innuendo

Reference to
plaintiff

Class or
Group
defamation

P verbally abused D, N
and others. D wrote a
report to N suggesting
that P was from a
subcultural background.
Cassidy v Daily DMN published that X
Mirror
and C were engaged
when they were in fact
married.

improper
financial gain
was.
No
In light of the
defamation egalitarian society
in which they were,
words could not be
defamatory
Defamation Anyone knowing X
and C were living
together might
think it immoral.

Words spoken must

be considered in the
context of the era
and society in which
they are spoken.
Words innocent on
their face may be
defamatory if special
facts are known to
those who hear/read
them
Gairy v Bullen D published article
Defamation Article didnt
Reference to plaintiff
No.1
alleging sexual
mention PM by
neednt be by name.
impropriety towards
name but enough
It will suffice if
young girls seeking
ordinary people
ordinary sensible
jobs.
would believe it
people would believe
was him
it to be him.
Morgan v
The character of the
Odhams Press
article must be
considered. Plus, the
reasonable man may
be loose-thinking.
Bodden v Bush D referred to the govt. as Each member By govt. people
Where the
dictators and
of the
generally meant the defamation is of so
communists.
executive
executive only and small a class that the
could sue.
since there were
members were easily
only 4 members, all ascertainable, all
could sue.
could sue.

Class or
Group
Defamation

Ramsahoye v
Peter Taylor &
Co. Ltd.

D said a group of
members of the govt.
were professionals
acting unprofessionally.

Defamation

Unintended
defamation

Hulton v Jones D published story of the

adlterous exploits of
Artemas Jones. A man
by that name sued.

Defamation

Unintentional
defamation

Newstead v
London
Express
Newspaper
Haynes v
Johnson

D published a factual
report of Xs trial. X and
P had the same name
and lived in the same
place. P sued.

Defamation

D accused Dr. running

for elections of
overcharging, being
callous and taking
advantage of clients.

Defamation

Professional in that
society meant
lawyers and Drs.
and there were only
3 lawyers and 1 Dr.
in Govt.

Even where the

defamation is of a
large group, a
member can sue if
there is something in
it which makes him
identifiable.
Whether or not the Even defamation by
newspaper intended accident may incur
it, it was possible
liability.
for people knowing
man to think its
him.
Although the whole Liability for
thing was quite
accidental or
coincidental, the
unintentional
fact is people had
defamation may be
though X was P.
only nominal
however.
Words which
It is not sufficient if
impute impropriety Ds words merely
or misconduct by P speak of P in his
will be defamatory. calling; they must
impute misconduct.