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 of companies with which he was connected’. The defendant filed an amended defence pleading justification and relied in its particulars on events which had taken place after the date of publication of the matter complained of. The plaintiff sought to strike out the particulars of post-publication facts.
Held: He was unsuccessful.
Lord Cozens-Hardy MR said: ‘In a general allegation by way of justification of general character and general tendency, which are the only words I can think of at the moment as the meaning of the word ‘likely’, I do not see how you can exclude events which happen, I will not say years later, but within a reasonable time from the date of the publications. I instance a case which seems to me to be rather analogous; an allegation that the plaintiff was addicted to drink and would get drunk if he could. Could you exclude evidence that the day after publication of that libel he had been found suffering from delirium tremens? It seems to me you could not in answer to a general allegation of what the man was likely to have done if he could.’
Judges:
Lord Cozens-Hardy MR, Pickfo
Citations:
[1915] 3 KB 336
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Maisel v Financial Times Ltd (1) HL 1915
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Defamation
Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.451205
