ELEMENTS OF DEFAMATION
THE WORDS MUST BE
DEFAMATORY
P must proof that the words
refers to him .For example, P`s
name is clearly stated etc. It is
immaterial whether D intended
to defame or not. If he intend
then P can claim higher award.
Hulton & Co. v Jones
THE WORDS MUST REFER
TO THE PLAINTIFF
D will also be liable where the
statement is true of one
person but is, in fact ,
defamatory of another person
of the same name or same
description, who is not known
to D and that person suffers
injury as a result of the
publication.
Newstead v London
Express Newspapers Ltd.
Morgan v Odhams
Press
No need to show key or
pointer to P, so long as it
implications point to P,
D is liable.
Unintentional Defamation
1. s.7 DA provides a mitigating
factors for D. It applies to any
defamatory words which are
innocently published.
2. S. 7 (5) Words are innocently
published if it fulfil following
conditions:
(a) that the publisher did not intend
to publish them of and concerning
that other person and did not know
of cricumstances by virtue of which
they might be understood to refer to
him
(b) that the words `were not
defamatory on the face of them, and
the publisher did not know of
circumstance by virtue of which they
might be understood to be
defamatory of that person
(c)and in either case that the
publisher exercised all reasonable
care in relation to the publication.
Although D can prove as above, it is
not a complete defence.
3. D can discharge his liability by
making an offer of amends by:
(a) publishing suitable correction and
apology.
(b)necessary steps taken to notify
the person to whom copies has been
distributed.
If P accept the offer of amends then
no suit for libel.
4. But he don’t accept.D must proof
in his defence:
(i) that the words were published
innocently
(ii)offer was made as soonas
practicable
(iii, that the author other than D has
written it w/out malice.
Defamation of a Class
1. A group as whole cannot
be defamed as a group.
And also an individual
cannot bedefamed by a
general reference to a class
to which he belongs.
Knupper v London
Express Newspaper Ltd.
Eg. A man says all lawyers
ar thieves. No particular
can sue him unless there is
something to point to a
particular lawyer.
2. H/ever if the statements
indicates a particular
plaintiff of plaintiffs then can
sue.
3. Liability depends on the
size of class.Larger the
class smaller the chances
to success.Smaller the
larger chances to success.
Foxcroft v Lacey
WORDS MUST BE PUBLISHED
1. Publication is the communication of
the words to at least one person other
then the person defamed.
2. Publication can be done, in words or
writing or prints by D.
3. s. 2 DA defines words as includes
pictures ,visual image, gestures and
other methods of signifying meaning.
4. A dictates a defamatory letter to his
typist, A is liable for slander. If typist
return back to A or read back to A here
not published. But if typist read to a
third party is sander.
5. If D send defamatory letter to B but
someone else has access to the
contents, the issue here is whether D
reasonably forsee this effect, if so, D
liable.
Huth v Huth
6. It is rebuttable presumption, that
postcard and telegram send through
post office, are published
7. IF slander words spoken in foreign
words not understandble no
publication.
Luk Kai Lam v Sim Ai Ling
OTHER RELEVAN
FACTORS
1.Husband and Wife
Communication of a
defamatory matter by
husband to his wife, not
publication, but if a third party
published to a spouse is a
publication.
2.Repetition
Every repetition of a
defamatory matter is a new
publication and can be sued
individually.
3. Mere Distributor
Distributor are presumptively
liable but have good defence
if they can proof:
(i) that they were innocent of
any knowledge of the libel
(ii) that there was nothing in
the work to suppose for them
that it contain libel
(iii)that when the work was
disseminated by them, it was
not by any negligence on their
part that it contain libel.
4. Printer
Printer are liable eventhough
he has not acted negligently.It
is adviseble for him to take
promise of indeminity from
the publisher.