THE UNIVERSITY OF THE WEST INDIES ST. AUGUSTINE CAMPUS

• Faculty of Law
• LAW2010: Law of Torts II
• Academic Year
• Lecturer: Mrs. Adanna Joseph-Wallace
• Office Hours:
• Course Email: law2010uwista@gmail.com
• Topic 3: Defamation
• Readings:
  • Kidner, Richard, Casebook on Torts, Oxford University Press, 12th edition (2012), Chapter 22
  • Kodilinye, Gilbert and Cothésy, Natalie, Commonwealth Caribbean Tort Law, Routledge, 6th edition (2022), Chapter 10
  • James Goudkamp, Donal Nolan, Winfield & Jolowicz on Tort, Sweet and Maxwell, 20th edition (2020), Chapter 12
  • Heuston, R.F.V., and Buckley, R.A., Salmond and Heuston on The Law of Torts, 21st edition (1996), Chapter 8
  • Howarth, Libel: Its Purpose and Reform, (2011) MLR 845

Introduction

• Core Principle:
  • Every individual is entitled to their good name, and unfair imputations that damage their reputation are not permissible without justification.
  • In a democratic society, individuals should be free to publish statements of fact and opinions, even if such statements are unflattering to particular individuals or groups.
• Key Quote:
  • Dennis Lloyd, Reform of the Law of Libel (1952) underscores the balance between the individual’s right to reputation and the public’s interest in freedom of expression.

Freedom of Expression and Protection of Reputation

• Constitutional provisions evident in various Commonwealth Caribbean nations include:
  • Antigua and Barbuda: Freedom of Expression – s12(9)(2)
  • Bahamas: Freedom of Expression – s23(1)
  • Barbados: Freedom of Expression – s20(1)
  • St. Lucia: Freedom of Expression – s10(1)
  • St. Kitts and Nevis: Freedom of Expression – s12(1)
  • Trinidad and Tobago: Freedom of the Press – s4(k)
  • Belize: Protection of Reputation – s12(2)(b)
  • Grenada: Protection of Reputation – s10(2)(b)
  • Dominica: Protection of Reputation – s10(2)(5)
  • St. Vincent: Protection of Reputation – s10(2)(b)
  • Jamaica: Protection of Reputation – s22(2)(a)(ii)

The Nature of Defamation

• Definition:
  • Defamation involves statements about another that harm that person's reputation in the eyes of at least one individual.
• Comparison:
  • Defamation is different from Malicious Falsehood; whereas defamation concerns reputation, malicious falsehood pertains to a person’s business.
• Liability:
  • Defamation imposes near strict liability upon the tortfeasor despite the intangible subject matter.
• Forms of Defamation:
  1. Libel:
     • Permanent form statements (e.g., writing, effigies)
     • Actionable per se (no proof of damage required).
     • Key cases:
       • Monson v Tussauds Ltd [1894] 1 QB 671
       • Youssoupoff v MGM Pictures (1934) 50 TLR 581
       • British Guiana Rice Marketing Board V Peter Taylor and Co Ltd. (1967) 11 WIR 208
  2. Slander:
     • Transient statements (e.g., spoken words)
     • Actionable where the claimant shows special damage (financial loss) or in specific circumstances.
     • Key cases:
       • Sunanansing v Ramkerising (1897) 1 Trin LR 54
       • (Conditions Actionable per se):
       • Criminal accusations: e.g., Griffiths v Dawson (1998) Gleaner LR 17
       • Assertion of a disease: e.g., Murray v Williams (1936) 6 JLR 180
       • Claims of adultery/promiscuity: e.g., Ramkhelawan v Motilal (1967) 19 Trin LR (Pt II) 117
       • Implying unfitness for profession: e.g., Gordon v Panday TT 2000 HC 133

Essentials of Defamation

• Establishing a Claim:
  • To prevail in a defamation claim, four essential elements must be proven:
    1. Defamatory Nature of Words:
       • Defined as a statement lowering a person’s esteem among right-thinking members of society.
       • Key case: Sim v Stretch (1936) 52 TLR 669
    2. Reference to Claimant:
       • The statement must refer to the claimant, not necessarily by name.
       • Cases illustrating this:
       • Morgan v Oldhams Press Ltd [1971] 1 WLR 1239
       • Hulton v Jones [1910] A.C. 20
       • Defamation by description, where the defamed person is not the intended target: e.g., Newstead v London Express Newspapers Ltd. [1939] 4 All ER 319
    3. Publication to a Third Party:
       • The statement must be communicated to a third party; intent to harm is not necessary.
       • Relevant cases:
       • Huth v Huth [1915] 3 KB 32
       • Al Amoudi v Brisard [2006] 3 All ER 294
    4. Unintentional Defamation:
       • Intent to defame is irrelevant under common law, though there is statutory protection for innocent publications (offer of amends).

Parties in Defamation Cases

• Who May Sue?
  • Living persons and certain corporations (e.g., trading corporations) have the right to sue for defamation.
  • Notable cases:
    • Rubber Improvements Ltd v Daily Telegraph Ltd [1964] A.C. 234
    • British Guiana Rice Marketing Board v Peter Taylor And Co Ltd
• Who May Not Sue?
  • Public authorities, political parties, and public figures face additional challenges in bringing defamation suits requiring a higher standard of proof (actual malice).
  • Cases:
    • NY Times v Sullivan 376 U.S. 254 (1964)
• Defamation After Death:
  • Allowable under Barbados legislation within three years, with limitations on damage claims.

Defences to Defamation

• 1. Insufficient Elements:
  • Liability can be negated if the claimant fails to meet all elements of defamation.
• 2. Justification or Truth:
  • Truth as a complete defence. Intentions surrounding the statement are irrelevant if the statement is true.
    • Libel: Committing the tort without defense implies liability.
    • Slander: Requires proof of special damages typically.
    • Cases illustrating these principles:
      • Alexander v North Eastern Rly Co [1865] 6 B & S 340
      • Common law modified in Jamaica regarding multiple allegations of defamation and the burden of proof.
• 3. Fair Comment:
  • This qualifies as a defense if the statement is a comment on a matter of public interest based on true facts and made without malice.
    • Relevant cases include:
      • British Guiana Rice Marketing Board V Peter Taylor and Co Ltd. (1967) 11 WIR 208
• 4. Qualified Privilege:
  • Protects statements made under societal duty where public interest is at stake.
    • Can be defeated by proven malice. Key cases involve Pereira v Peiris [1949] AC 1.
• 5. Absolute Privilege:
  • Now limited to certain contexts, such as parliamentary or judicial proceedings, and the scope is governed by statute.
    • Cases include: Jennings v Buchanan [2004] 2 WLR 1163
• 6. Assent to Publication:
  • Regarding the principle of consent in cases where the claimant agrees to the public dissemination of the information.
  • Example case: Cookson v Harewood [1932] 2 KB 478
• 7. Triviality:
  • Claims may be dismissed on the ground of triviality, protecting against cases of insignificant impact on reputation.
  • Cases: Mc Carey v Associated Newspapers Ltd [1964] 1 WLR 855.