SIM v. STRETCH (1936) 52 T.L.R 669

In Sim v Stretch (1936) 52 TLR 669 at 671, when deciding whether a telegram bore a defamatory meaning, Lord Atkin observed, “Judges and text book writers alike have found difficulty in defining with precision the word ‘defamatory’. The conventional phrase exposing the plaintiff to hatred, ridicule, or contempt is probably too narrow. The question is complicated by having to consider the person or class of persons, whose reaction to the publication is the test of the wrongful character of the words used.” Despite stating that he did not intend to ask their Lordships to lay down a formal definition, Lord Atkin’s proposed test – “Would the words tend to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally?” – did just that.

Later in his judgment, Lord Atkin said, “That juries should be free to award damages for injuries to reputation is one of the safeguards of liberty. But the protection is undermined when exhibitions of bad manners or discourtesy are placed on the same level as attacks on character and are treated as actionable wrongs” (at 672). Justice Tugendhat found that this statement introduced into the tort of defamation an element of seriousness, which would ensure that “trivial” claims were excluded.

CREDITS: NZLawyer magazine, issue 139, 25 June 2010