Sim v Stretch
A statement is defamatory if it tends to lower the claimant in the estimation of right thinking members of society generally.
Facts
A housemaid, Edith Saville, had left Mr Sim's employment and gone to work for Mr Stretch. Mr Stretch sent Mr Sim a telegram saying that Edith had resumed her service with Mr Stretch, and asking Mr Sim to send her possessions and the money he had borrowed from her, and to pay her wages. Mr Sim sued for libel, claiming that the telegram meant that he had been so poor that he had to borrow money from his maid and had not paid her wages.
Legal principle
The House of Lords held that the telegram was not defamatory. Lord Atkin said that the test is whether the words tend to lower the claimant in the estimation of right thinking members of society generally. The words were not capable of bearing a defamatory meaning, because borrowing money from a servant and not paying wages would not be understood by reasonable people as a slur on Mr Sim's character, in the context of a telegram between two employers.
Related cases on defamation and privacy
- Berkoff v Burchill [1996] 4 All ER 1008
- Bloomberg LP v ZXC [2022] UKSC 5, [2022] AC 1158
- Campbell v MGN Ltd [2004] UKHL 22, [2004] 2 AC 457
- Cassidy v Daily Mirror Newspapers Ltd [1929] 2 KB 331
- Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd [1993] AC 534
- Douglas v Hello! Ltd (No 3) [2007] UKHL 21, [2008] 1 AC 1
- Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd [2012] UKSC 11, [2012] 2 AC 273
- Jameel v Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl [2006] UKHL 44, [2007] 1 AC 359
Studying tort law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
