(Supreme Court of Ireland) A claimant can give evidence about persons who made contact with him and by their conduct or statements had indicated they had identified him as the subject of the libel, or evidence that he had been the subject of ridicule and laughter at a public meeting. Such evidence was admissible, not as constituting a form of exception to the hearsay rule but ‘Evidence is given of comments, remarks often insulting, made by third persons (not witnesses) saying or implying that they thought the article referred to the plaintiff. I do not think that it should be considered as [an exception to the hearsay rule]. The question is whether the plaintiff in a defamation action is identified in the article of which he complains. If he can show that persons, who have read the article, have identified him, that is evidence of that objective fact, which can be admitted for consideration by the jury.’
Judges:
Murray CJ, Denham J, Hardiman J, Fennelly J, Macken J
Citations:
[2011] 3 IR 96, [2011] IESC 17
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Jones v E Hulton and Co CA 26-May-1909
The defendants, who were the proprietors and publishers of a newspaper, published in an article in their paper defamatory statements of a named person believed by the writer of the article and by the defendants to be a fictitious personage with an . .
Cited by:
Cited – Simon and Others v Lyder and Another PC 29-Jul-2019
(Trinidad and Tobago) The Board was asked as to the well-known conundrum in the common law of defamation, namely the extent to which (if at all) two or more different statements made upon different occasions by the same defendant may be aggregated . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Defamation
Updated: 24 April 2022; Ref: scu.676323