
Defamation
Doctrine in Tort. 72 cases, with the principle each one established. By lanbuk.com.
- Adams v Coleridge
Lanbuk on the Law of Torts · 1884
Principle established: A near relative or close friend may warn a woman about the character of a man she plans to marry.
- Alexander v North Eastern Railway Co
Lanbuk on the Law of Torts · 1865
Principle established: Justification succeeded where the statement was true in substance, though inaccurate in a detail (the length of a prison term).
- Allsop v Church of England Newspaper Ltd
Lanbuk on the Law of Torts · 1972
Principle established: Where words can carry meanings beyond the dictionary sense, the claimant must set them out in the pleadings.
- Astaire v Campling
Lanbuk on the Law of Torts · 1966
Principle established: Words are read in their natural and ordinary meaning, as reasonable people would understand them (Diplock LJ).
- Bakare v Ibrahim
Lanbuk on the Law of Torts · 1973
Principle established: Express malice is any wrong or corrupt motive, or using the occasion for an indirect purpose.
- Bakare v Ishola
Lanbuk on the Law of Torts · 1959
Principle established: Words like 'thief, ex-convict' shouted during a fight were mere vulgar abuse.
- Bankole-Bright v Boston, 1920-36 ALR S.L. 410
Sierra Leone — African Law Reports · 1920-36
Principle established: Words imputing professional incompetence, financial bankruptcy, or dishonourable conduct to a professional person are defamatory and actionable per se.
- Bloodworth v Gray
Lanbuk on the Law of Torts · 1844
Principle established: Imputing a venereal disease was slander actionable per se.
- Boston v W S Bagshaw & Sons
Lanbuk on the Law of Torts · 1966
Principle established: A common interest between auctioneers can found qualified privilege.
- Bourke v Warren
Lanbuk on the Law of Torts · 1826
Principle established: It is enough that people who know the claimant would understand the words refer to him.
- Brockley v Maxwell
Lanbuk on the Law of Torts · 1949
Principle established: Calling a man 'a bastard, a liar and a cheat' was not actionable per se.
- Byrne v Deane
Lanbuk on the Law of Torts · 1937
Principle established: The standard is right-thinking members of society generally, not a particular group.
- Capital and Counties Bank v Henty
Lanbuk on the Law of Torts · 1882
Principle established: A defamatory statement is one calculated to injure reputation by exposing a person to hatred, contempt or ridicule.
- Cassell & Co Ltd v Broome
Lanbuk on the Law of Torts · 1972
Principle established: Confirmed Rookes v Barnard's categories. Publishing a libel to make a profit can justify exemplary damages.
- Cassidy v Daily Mirror Newspapers Ltd
Lanbuk on the Law of Torts · 1929
Principle established: Innocent intention is no defence; what matters is how readers understand the words.
- Conteh v R, 1967-68 ALR S.L. 141
Sierra Leone — African Law Reports · 1967-68
Principle established: A court cannot enter a not guilty plea of its own volition and discharge an accused without trial, nor is republication defamatory if it merely attributes statements to a named informant.
- Conteh v Reginam (CR APP 7 of 1967) [1967] SLCA 1237 (6 May 1967)
Sierra Leone — Court of Appeal · 1967
Principle established: A trial court has no authority on its own initiative to enter a plea of not guilty and discharge an accused without trial.
- Curtis v Curtis
Lanbuk on the Law of Torts · 1834
Principle established: Saying 'you have committed an act for which I can put you in prison' was actionable per se.
- De Crespigny v Wellesley
Lanbuk on the Law of Torts · 1829
Principle established: Repeating someone else's defamatory words is a fresh publication; wrong is not justified by wrong (Best CJ).
- Dwyer v Esmonde
Lanbuk on the Law of Torts · 1878
Principle established: Privilege in self-defence covers repelling charges, not making fresh accusations.
- E Hulton & Co v Jones
Lanbuk on the Law of Torts · 1910
Principle established: Intention is irrelevant to identification.
- Eastwood v Holmes
Lanbuk on the Law of Torts · 1858
Principle established: If a man wrote that all lawyers were thieves, no particular lawyer could sue (Willes J).
- Edna Johnson v Joyce Smith (CC 159 of 1961) [1963] SLSC 25 (26 June 1963)
Sierra Leone — Supreme Court · 1963
Principle established: A slanderer is liable for special damage resulting from third-party repetition only if the repetition was authorised, intended, natural, or legally or morally required.
- Edna Johnson v Joyce Smith (CC 159 of 1961) [1963] SLSC 52 (26 June 1963)
Sierra Leone — Supreme Court · 1963
Principle established: An originator of slander is not liable for damage resulting from repetition unless the repetition was authorised, intended, the natural consequence of the utterance, or made under a moral obligation.
- Emmens v Pottle
Lanbuk on the Law of Torts · 1885
Principle established: A distributor who did not know of the libel, had no reason to suspect it, and was not negligent in not knowing, has the defence of innocent dissemination.
- Gregory v Duke of Brunswick
Lanbuk on the Law of Torts · 1843
Principle established: Hissing an actor off the stage by arrangement was treated as slander, a transient form of defamation.
- Harrison v R, 1967-68 ALR S.L. 119
Sierra Leone — African Law Reports · 1967-68
Principle established: A defendant acting within the scope of a privileged occasion without indirect or improper motives is protected from liability for defamation, and mere anger or hurt pride does not establish malice.
- Harrison v Reginam (CR APP 52 of 1966) [1967] SLCA 1234 (2 May 1967)
Sierra Leone — Court of Appeal · 1967
Principle established: An occasion of qualified privilege protects a publisher who writes with just cause and excuse, and hurt feelings or passion do not suffice to prove actionable malice.
- Horrocks v Lowe
Lanbuk on the Law of Torts · 1975
Principle established: Malice means using the privileged occasion for an improper purpose, such as spite or personal advantage. Honest belief in the truth of the statement is normally enough to keep the privilege, however irrational the belief.
- Huth v Huth
Lanbuk on the Law of Torts · 1915
Principle established: Publication requires communication to a third party that the defendant intended or could foresee.
- Ibeanu v Uba
Lanbuk on the Law of Torts · 1972
Principle established: An accusation of stealing goats, made calmly before witnesses, was slander, not vulgar abuse.
- Jones v Jones
Lanbuk on the Law of Torts · 1916
Principle established: An accusation that a schoolmaster committed adultery with a cleaner did not touch him in his profession, so was not actionable per se.
- Kemsley v Foot
Lanbuk on the Law of Torts · 1952
Principle established: Fair comment was available where the facts commented on were sufficiently indicated.
- Kerr v Kennedy
Lanbuk on the Law of Torts · 1942
Principle established: Imputing lesbianism was held to be an imputation of unchastity under the Slander of Women Act 1891.
- Knupffer v London Express Newspaper Ltd
Lanbuk on the Law of Torts · 1944
Principle established: Words must be understood to refer to the claimant; a statement about a large group does not refer to each member.
- Lewis v Daily Telegraph Ltd
Lanbuk on the Law of Torts · 1964
Principle established: Words are read as the ordinary reasonable reader, neither unusually suspicious nor naive, would understand them (Lord Reid).
- London Artists Ltd v Littler
Lanbuk on the Law of Torts · 1969
Principle established: Public interest covers matters affecting people at large (Lord Denning).
- Mokate v United Democratic Movement and Another (26427/2020) [2022] ZAGPPHC 191 (4 April 2022)
South Africa · 2022
Principle established: Publication of false and defamatory allegations regarding the misappropriation of state resources is unlawful and may warrant an interdict for removal and a public retraction.
- Monson v Tussauds Ltd
Lanbuk on the Law of Torts · 1894
Principle established: Libel can be in any permanent form, such as a statue or effigy (Lopes LJ).
- Morgan v Odhams Press Ltd
Lanbuk on the Law of Torts · 1971
Principle established: Identification depends on what reasonable readers with knowledge of the circumstances would understand.
