Defamation Cases

March 21, 2018 | Author: DàniéLewinski | Category: Defamation, Private Law, Public Law, Crime & Justice, Crimes



Sub-topicCase Facts Sunanansingh v At a public meeting D Ramkerising said P’s sister-in-law was living with him and pregnant for him. P was banished from his caste. Allen v Miller D’s words alleged that P had a VD althought they did not literally mean that. Murray v Williams Jones v Jones D accused P of having consumption and said his wife and family had it too. Held Principle No Slander Slander needs proof b/c no special of special damage. damage. Loss of friends will not suffice. Defamation by context The court must consider the place and circumstances, in which the words are used. No actionable Words capable of slander defamation but the rule only covered VDs. Jordan v The Advocate D said principal had Words not committed adultery with actionable per the married school se cleaner. D said Sr. Dr.s too busy playing golf to consult with Jr. Dr.s about patients. P was the only consultant who saw patients and played golf. The words did not disparage P’s capacity as a principal Reference to P needn’t be direct, eg. by name. It will suffice if P is identifiable. Ramkhelawan v Motilal D called Mrs. P a nasty whore and prostitute and The defence of mere vulgar abuse Defence of mere vulgar Other The loss must be the legal and natural consequence of the defamation. The test to be applied is not that of the school teacher but that of the reasonable man in the canepeice where the words were said. Imputations of illnesses other than VDs will not be actionable under slander. At common law the disparagement must be in the way of P’s profession or trade. It matter not whether the reference to P was intended or whether D knew the special fact which might lead people to think of P. Once defamation is established it will be The article clearly Where the words said P had not taken clearly state one any bribes so the thing the court will reasonable man not infer something would have no to the contrary. vulgar abuse alone.False or Popular innuendo offered dates as to when men visited her. was involved in a drug investigation but had not accepted any payoffs. An action for However. an RM. Right-thinking members of the general public would not think less of P irrelevant that D did not intend to defame P. John D accused lawyers running for elections of treason for representing organization claiming country’s prized Accusation of treason not defamatory but imputation of will fail where D attempts to prove the truth of his statement. abuse must fail. No defamation Griffiths v Dawson D accused P of being a criminal and having sabotaged his life by blackballing him. where the defamation cannnot abuse impute an be brought on the actual crime it will basis of mere be actionable. The ordinary man falls between the extreme of unusually suspicious and unusually naïve. No defamation Maxwell v Forde & St. . No defamation Lewis v Daily Telegraph D alleged that P was being investigated by the fraud squad. It is not sufficient for the defamation to injure P’s reputation in the eyes of a select group of people. reason to think so. Bonaby v Nassau Guardian D published that P. Bryne v Dean P alleged that D had posted a sign accusing him of being a police informer. 1 alleging sexual mention PM by needn’t be by name. Plus. Words innocent on their face may be defamatory if special facts are known to those who hear/read them Gairy v Bullen D published article Defamation Article didn’t Reference to plaintiff No. N and others. Bodden v Bush D referred to the govt. No In light of the defamation egalitarian society in which they were. Cassidy v Daily DMN published that X Mirror and C were engaged when they were in fact married. D wrote a report to N suggesting that P was from a subcultural background. as Each member By govt. people Where the dictators and of the generally meant the defamation is of so communists. words could not be defamatory Defamation Anyone knowing X and C were living together might think it immoral. . impropriety towards name but enough It will suffice if young girls seeking ordinary people ordinary sensible and said they would become ‘fat cats’. since there were members were easily only 4 members. could sue. Bacchus v Bacchus True or innocent innuendo Reference to plaintiff Class or Group defamation P verbally abused D. improper financial gain was. would believe it people would believe was him it to be him. Words spoken must be considered in the context of the era and society in which they are spoken. Morgan v The character of the Odhams Press article must be considered. all ascertainable. the reasonable man may be loose-thinking. executive executive only and small a class that the could sue. all could sue. Words which It is not sufficient if impute impropriety D’s words merely or misconduct by P speak of P in his will be defamatory. they must impute misconduct. D said a group of members of the govt. Ltd. Defamation D accused Dr. in Govt. a member can sue if there is something in it which makes him identifiable. only nominal however. Defamation Unintentional defamation Newstead v London Express Newspaper Haynes v Johnson D published a factual report of X’s trial.Class or Group Defamation Ramsahoye v Peter Taylor & Co. X and P had the same name and lived in the same place. Whether or not the Even defamation by newspaper intended accident may incur it. Even where the defamation is of a large group. Defamation Unintended defamation Hulton v Jones D published story of the adlterous exploits of Artemas Jones. A man by that name sued. and there were only 3 lawyers and 1 Dr. P sued. Although the whole Liability for thing was quite accidental or coincidental. were professionals acting unprofessionally. the unintentional fact is people had defamation may be though X was P. Defamation Professional in that society meant lawyers and Drs. running for elections of overcharging. calling. it was possible liability. for people knowing man to think it’s him. . being callous and taking advantage of clients.
Copyright © 2021 DOKUMEN.SITE Inc.