Sub-topic Case Facts Held Principle Other

Sunanansingh v At a public meeting D No Slander Slander needs proof The loss must be the
Ramkerising said Ps sister-in-law b/c no special of special damage. legal and natural
was living with him and damage. Loss of friends will consequence of the
pregnant for him. P was not suffice. defamation.
banished from his caste.
Allen v Miller Ds words alleged that P Defamation The court must The test to be
had a VD althought they by context consider the place applied is not that of
did not literally mean and circumstances, the school teacher
that. in which the words but that of the
are used. reasonable man in
the canepeice where
the words were said.
Murray v D accused P of having No actionable Words capable of Imputations of
Williams consumption and said slander defamation but the illnesses other than
his wife and family had rule only covered VDs will not be
it too. VDs. actionable under
slander.
Jones v Jones D said principal had Words not The words did not At common law the
committed adultery with actionable per disparage Ps disparagement must
the married school se capacity as a be in the way of Ps
cleaner. principal profession or trade.
Jordan v The D said Sr. Dr.s too busy Reference to P It matter not whether
Advocate playing golf to consult neednt be direct, the reference to P
with Jr. Dr.s about eg. by name. It will was intended or
patients. P was the only suffice if P is whether D knew the
consultant who saw identifiable. special fact which
patients and played golf. might lead people to
think of P.
Ramkhelawan D called Mrs. P a nasty Defence of The defence of Once defamation is
v Motilal whore and prostitute and mere vulgar mere vulgar abuse established it will be
 offered dates as to when abuse must will fail where D irrelevant that D did
men visited her. fail. attempts to prove not intend to defame
the truth of his P.
statement.
Bryne v Dean P alleged that D had No Right-thinking It is not sufficient for
posted a sign accusing defamation members of the the defamation to
him of being a police general public injure Ps reputation
informer. would not think less in the eyes of a
of P select group of
people.
Lewis v Daily D alleged that P was The ordinary man
Telegraph being investigated by falls between the
the fraud squad. extreme of unusually
suspicious and
unusually nave.
False or Bonaby v D published that P, an No The article clearly Where the words
Popular Nassau RM, was involved in a defamation said P had not taken clearly state one
innuendo Guardian drug investigation but any bribes so the thing the court will
had not accepted any reasonable man not infer something
payoffs. would have no to the contrary.
reason to think so.
Griffiths v D accused P of being a No An action for However, where the
Dawson criminal and having defamation defamation cannnot abuse impute an
sabotaged his life by be brought on the actual crime it will
blackballing him. basis of mere be actionable.
vulgar abuse alone.
Maxwell v D accused lawyers Accusation of
Forde & St. running for elections of treason not
John treason for representing defamatory
organization claiming but
countrys prized imputation of
 property and said they improper
would become fat cats. financial gain
was.
Bacchus v P verbally abused D, N No In light of the
Words spoken must
Bacchus and others. D wrote a defamation egalitarian society
be considered in the
report to N suggesting in which they were,
context of the era
that P was from a words could not be
and society in which
subcultural background. defamatory they are spoken.
True or Cassidy v Daily DMN published that X Defamation Anyone knowing X Words innocent on
innocent Mirror and C were engaged and C were living
their face may be
innuendo when they were in fact together mightdefamatory if special
married. think it immoral.
facts are known to
those who hear/read
them
Reference to Gairy v Bullen D published article Defamation Article didnt Reference to plaintiff
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.
Class or Bodden v Bush D referred to the govt. as Each member By govt. people Where the
Group dictators and of the generally meant the defamation is of so
defamation 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 Ramsahoye v D said a group of Defamation Professional in thatEven where the
Group Peter Taylor & members of the govt. society meant defamation is of a
Defamation Co. Ltd. were professionals lawyers and Drs. large group, a
acting unprofessionally. and there were only member can sue if
3 lawyers and 1 Dr. there is something in
in Govt. it which makes him
identifiable.
Unintended Hulton v Jones D published story of the Defamation Whether or not the Even defamation by
defamation adlterous exploits of newspaper intended accident may incur
Artemas Jones. A man it, it was possible liability.
by that name sued. for people knowing
man to think its
him.
Unintentional Newstead v D published a factual Defamation Although the whole Liability for
defamation London report of Xs trial. X and thing was quite accidental or
Express P had the same name coincidental, the unintentional
Newspaper and lived in the same fact is people had defamation may be
place. P sued. though X was P. only nominal
however.
Haynes v D accused Dr. running Defamation Words which It is not sufficient if
Johnson for elections of impute impropriety Ds words merely
overcharging, being or misconduct by P speak of P in his
callous and taking will be defamatory. calling; they must
advantage of clients. impute misconduct.