An article was written by a correspondent of an English newspaper reporting that at a large and well attended motor vehicle show in France there on the terraces was ‘Artemus Jones with a woman not his wife who must be you know – the other thing.’ The writer did not know an Artemus Jones and had made the name up for the purposes of the story. In fact there really was an Artemus Jones a barrister in practice in North Wales.
Held: The plaintiff was entitled to maintain the action. The newspaper and its publishers were liable: ‘A person charged with libel cannot defend himself by showing that he intended in his own breast not to defame, or that he intended not to defame the plaintiff, if in fact he did both.’
Lord Loreburn LC said that intention is no defence ‘however excellent it may be’. The defendant’s remedy ‘is to abstain from defamatory words.’ It is for the jury to decide as a question of fact whether the article actually identified the plaintiff.
The meaning intended by the publisher is irrelevant for the purpose of construing the words, although it may be relevant to the question of damages.
‘Libel is a tortious act. What does the tort consist in? It consists in using language which others knowing the circumstances would reasonably think to be defamatory of the person complaining of and injured by it.’
Judges:
Loreburn LC
Citations:
[1910] AC 20, [1908-1910] All ER Rep 29, 79 LJKB 198, [1909] 2 KB 444, [1908-10] All ER 29, [1910] AC 20
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Cassell and Co Ltd v Broome and Another HL 23-Feb-1972
Exemplary Damages Award in Defamation
The plaintiff had been awarded damages for defamation. The defendants pleaded justification. Before the trial the plaintiff gave notice that he wanted additional, exemplary, damages. The trial judge said that such a claim had to have been pleaded. . .
Mentioned – Dow Jones and Co Inc v Jameel CA 3-Feb-2005
Presumption of Damage in Defamation is rebuttable
The defendant complained that the presumption in English law that the victim of a libel had suffered damage was incompatible with his right to a fair trial. They said the statements complained of were repetitions of statements made by US . .
Cited – Baturina v Times Newspapers Ltd CA 23-Mar-2011
The claimant appealed against directions given in her defamation action against the defendant. It had been said that she owned a house, and the defendant said that this was not defamatory. The claimant said that as the wife of the Mayor of Moscow . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Damages, Defamation, Defamation
Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.223204
