CASE LAW :
J. S FRY & SONS
Made By:Sakshi Nayak
Meaning of Defamation:
There is no single deﬁnition of Defamation means. Old cases
have suggested that a statement will be defamatory if it
‘tends to lower the person in the estimation of right-thinking
members of society’, or exposes the person to ‘hatred,
contempt or ridicule’.
It is the communication of a statement that makes a claim,
expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may
givean individual, business, product, group, government, reli
gion, or nation a negative or inferior image. This can be also
any disparaging statement made by one person about
another, which is communicated or published, whether true
or false, depending on legal state.
Types of Defamation
The common law origins of defamation lie in the torts of
"slander“ (harmful statement in a transitory form, especially
speech), each of which gives a common law right of action.. If
the offending material is published in some fleeting form, as
by spoken words or sounds, sign language, gestures and the
like, then this is slander.
Libel is defined as defamation by written or printed words,
pictures, or in any form other than by spoken words or
gestures. The law of libel originated in the 17th century in
England. With the growth of publication came the growth of
libel and development of the tort of libel.
A statement does need not make a direct criticism in
order to be defamatory – a defamatory implication or
innuendo can be just as dangerous.
This is fairly obvious when it comes to deliberate hints: if
you want to say that John Jones MP has taken bribes, you
cannot escape the risk of being defamatory by saying
something like ‘John Jones MP said he had not taken
bribes, and we all know that politicians never lie, don’t
In these types of case, the courts will look at what the
ordinary, reasonable reader would think that the words
Whether there was any loss of reputation of the
plaintiff due to the advertisement .
Judgment of the Case
It was held that the innuendo that the respondent had
prostituted the reputation and status of the plaintiff
for advertising of his chocolate was supported by the
facts and the advertisement was, therefore
,defamatory for a man in his position.
The House of Lords did not think the message
delivered as such was a false one. It was only the
context of an advertisement that the reader was given
a wrong impression which was defamatory to the
The reputation of an amateur golfer was diminished
through an undertaking that alleged that he had
been paid for the use of his image in an caricatureadvertisement.
He argued that anyone seeing the advertisement
would assume he had both consented to and been
paid for it, and that this would suggest that he had
compromised his amateur status.
Therefore the respondent is liable for compensation
to the plaintiff.