Case Facts
The plaintiff, a Mr Sim, employed a housemaid named Edith Saville. In April 1934, the defendant, a Mr Stretch, induced Edith to leave the plaintiff's service and re-enter his own employment. The background to the telegram in dispute was this: at the end of March 1934, Edith had paid 14 shillings out of her own funds for household items purchased on behalf of Mrs Sim. That sum remained outstanding when Edith departed on 12 April 1934, and was not repaid until 15 April.
On the day Edith resumed service with him, the defendant dictated a telegram at Maidenhead post office and addressed it to the plaintiff at The Twigs, Cookham Dean. The telegram read: "Edith has resumed her service with us today. Please send her possessions and the money you borrowed also her wages to Old Barton. Sim."
The plaintiff brought two causes of action. First, he alleged malicious enticement of his housemaid from his service, for which a jury awarded him £25 — a sum that was not the subject of any appeal. Second, he alleged that the telegram constituted a libel. The trial was conducted before Talbot J and a common jury in February 1935, and the jury awarded £250 in damages on the libel count. The plaintiff supported this award by pleading an innuendo to the effect that the words of the telegram meant: (1) that the plaintiff was in pecuniary difficulties; (2) that he had been compelled to borrow money from his own housemaid; (3) that he had failed to pay the housemaid her wages; and (4) that he was a person to whom no one ought to give any credit.
The defendant appealed. The Court of Appeal, by a majority (Greer and Roche LJJ, with Slesser LJ dissenting), affirmed the jury's verdict of £250. The defendant then appealed to the House of Lords.
Held
The House of Lords reversed the decision of the Court of Appeal and entered judgement for the defendant. The House held that the words of the telegram were not reasonably capable of bearing a defamatory meaning in their ordinary signification. The alleged innuendo pleaded by the plaintiff was described as "fantastic." It was further stated that it had been the duty of the trial judge, Talbot J, to hold that the words were incapable of a defamatory meaning and to withdraw the innuendo count from the jury altogether, rather than leaving it to them to determine.
Ratio Decidendi
The central legal question was the appropriate test for determining whether words are capable of bearing a defamatory meaning. The House of Lords, in its leading speech, proposed the following formulation: would the words tend to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally? This test — often referred to as the "right-thinking members of society" test — remains the authoritative standard for identifying whether a statement is capable of being defamatory in English law.
Applying this test to the facts, the words of the telegram, read in their ordinary meaning, could not reasonably be understood by right-thinking members of society as lowering the plaintiff's reputation. A request by one employer to another to send along money that had been "borrowed," in the context of a departing housemaid's affairs, carried no ordinary or natural imputation of financial dishonesty or embarrassment. The House also confirmed the principle established in Watkin v Hall [1868] that where a claimant pleads an innuendo, the statement of claim is to be treated as containing two counts: one alleging libel based on the innuendo meaning, and the other based on the ordinary meaning of the words. On both counts, the plaintiff failed.
Obiter Dicta
In reaching this conclusion, the House observed that the conventional definition of defamatory words — namely, that they are words which expose the plaintiff to "hatred, ridicule and contempt" — is probably too narrow as a comprehensive statement of the law. Whilst declining to lay down an exhaustive formal definition, the House expressed the view that this older formulation does not adequately capture all the ways in which a statement may damage a person's reputation. The "right-thinking members of society" test was offered as a broader and more satisfactory criterion, capable of embracing a wider range of reputational harm than the traditional formula permits.