The Board considered the findings the jury as to the meaning of the words complained of: ‘It is not disputed that, whilst it is for the court to determine whether the words used are capable of the meaning alleged in the innuendo, it is for the jury to determine whether that meaning was properly attached to them. It was therefore the province of the jury in the present case to determine whether the words used were written of the plaintiff, and whether they bore the defamatory sense alleged.
[The judge below] observed in the course of his judgment that he admitted that the Court would only be justified in reversing the finding of the jury ‘if their decision upon that point is such as no jury could give as reasonable men’. This is a correct statement of the law. Their Lordships have not, any more than the Court below had, to determine in the present case what is the conclusion at which they would have arrived, or what is the verdict they would have found. The only point to be determined is, whether the verdict found by the jury, for whose consideration it essentially was, was such as no jury could have found as reasonable men.’ and
‘The question therefore is whether in all these circumstances it can be said that a jury of reasonable men could not possibly find that the article, although it contains that which had much better not have been published, did not reflect upon the plaintiff’s character, or even upon his conduct in relation to the newspaper. The jury have so found, and their Lordships are of opinion that it would be exceeding the legitimate function of the court if the verdict was set aside and a new trial ordered, that the court would then in reality be taking upon itself the function which the law has committed to the jury, of looking at the alleged libelous matter as a whole, and determining whether it is published of and concerning the plaintiff, and whether it bears the innuendo which the plaintiff seeks to attach to it.’
Citations:
[1894] AC 284
Cited by:
Cited – Grobbelaar v News Group Newspapers Ltd and Another CA 18-Jan-2001
The claimant had been awarded andpound;85,000 damages in defamation after the defendant had wrongly accused him of cheating at football. The newspaper sought to appeal saying that the verdict was perverse and the defence of qualified privilege . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Defamation
Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.272786
