Skip to content

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.