Tort Law

Defamation cases

Lewis v Daily Telegraph [1964] AC 234

Key Point

• To ascertain the meaning of the words in defamation, the court has to ask itself how a reasonable ordinary reader would understand these words
• The ordinary meaning of words includes both the meaning of the words themselves (on face value) and what can be inferred
• A statement on an inquiry into wrongdoing does not impute the meaning of guilt for the purposes of a defamation claim

Facts

• Two national newspapers (the defendants) published articles headed respectively “Inquiry on Firm by City Police” and “Fraud Squad Probe Firm” which alleged a police inquiry into Lewis and the firm he was chairman of (the claimants).
• The claimants sued for defamation, claiming that those articles were imputing guilt for fraud
• The judge considered the articles to be capable of meaning that the claimants were guilty of fraud and directed the jury that it was open for them to find the words to carry such a meaning
• The juries in both actions against each of the defendants held that the words were defamatory and granted large sums of damages, likely on the basis that the words imputed guilt for fraud
• The defendants appealed on the basis that the judge should have directed the jury that the articles were not capable of conveying that the claimants were guilty of fraud
• The Court of Appeal set aside the verdicts and ordered a new trial; the claimants appealed

Issue

• Whether the articles are capable of meaning that the claimants were guilty of fraud