The plaintiff company director complained of defamation in the report of his arrest on a charge of fraud. In his Statement of Claim, the plaintiff relied upon an imputation that he was an unfit person to be the director of any company. The newspaper sought to justify the imputation by relying on dishonest acts other than those referred to in the article. The plaintiff moved to strike out those particulars of the justification defence arguing that the defendant could not justify the defamation by matters not referred to in the article.
Held: The defendant was entitled to justify that imputation by relying upon a number of other dishonest acts, quite independent of that for which he was said in the matter complained of to have been arrested. It is for the defendant to choose how he wishes to justify his imputation.
Citations:
(1915) 84 LJKB 2145, (1915) 31 TLR 192, (1915) 112 LT 953
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
See Also – Maisel v Financial Times Ltd (2) CA 2-Jan-1915
Having failed to have the defence of justification struck out in his action for defamation, the plaintiff amended his imputations to include one asserting that ‘his character and reputation were such that he was likely to have misappropriated funds . .
Cited – Rothschild v Associated Newspapers Ltd QBD 10-Feb-2012
The claimant said that an article published by the defendant was defamatory. He said that the article implied that in his business associations he had put others at risk to their reputations.
Held: The action failed. The words were indeed . .
Cited – Rothschild v Associated Newspapers Ltd QBD 10-Feb-2012
The claimant said that an article published by the defendant was defamatory. He said that the article implied that in his business associations he had put others at risk to their reputations.
Held: The action failed. The words were indeed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Defamation
Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.451204