Tort Law

Hough v. London Express Newspaper Ltd.

[1940] 2 KB 507; [1940] 3 All ER 31

Facts

• Mrs Hough was the lawful wife of a professional boxer named Frank Hough.
• The couple were living apart, but persons familiar with them knew that she remained his legal wife.
• London Express Newspaper published an article relating to a boxing event.
• The article referred to another woman as “Frank Hough’s curly-headed wife” or used words conveying that meaning.
• The description did not refer to Mrs Hough but to a woman publicly accompanying the boxer.
• Readers without special knowledge might simply believe that the woman shown or described was Frank Hough’s wife.
• Readers who knew that Mrs Hough was the legal wife could understand a different implication.
• The publication could suggest that Mrs Hough:
o was falsely representing herself elsewhere;
o was not lawfully married;
o tolerated an improper relationship; or
o occupied a socially discreditable position.
• Mrs Hough sued for libel, relying upon extrinsic facts known to some readers.

• Whether words innocent on their face can become defamatory through a true or legal innuendo.
• Whether Mrs Hough had to prove that a particular reader actually believed the defamatory implication.
• Whether the newspaper’s lack of knowledge or intention defeated liability.

• A statement may be defamatory in two ways:
o through its ordinary and natural meaning; or
o through a special meaning created by extrinsic facts known to recipients.
• The second is known as a true or legal innuendo.
• The claimant must identify and prove:
o the extrinsic facts;
o publication to persons knowing those facts; and
o a defamatory meaning reasonably arising from the combination.
• It is not necessary to prove that the defendant intended the hidden meaning.
• Nor must the claimant necessarily show that a reader actually believed the allegation.
• It is sufficient that reasonable persons possessing the relevant knowledge could understand the words in the defamatory sense.

• To an uninformed reader, the article might appear complimentary or neutral.
• To persons who knew Mrs Hough was the boxer’s lawful wife, describing another woman as his wife created a serious and different implication.
• The words could lower Mrs Hough’s reputation by casting doubt upon her marriage or suggesting marital impropriety.
• The defamatory meaning did not arise solely from the article’s literal language.
• It arose from combining the publication with the readers’ knowledge of the real marital position.
• The newspaper could not avoid liability merely by saying that it did not know Mrs Hough or did not intend to refer to her.
• Defamation protects the effect of published words upon reputation.
• The proper question was whether recipients with the relevant background facts could reasonably understand that the publication reflected discredit upon Mrs Hough.
• That question was suitable for determination at trial.

• The Court of Appeal held that Mrs Hough’s claim could proceed.
• The words were capable of bearing a defamatory innuendo when read by persons who knew the true marital facts.
• The claimant did not need to prove an intention to defame or that a specific reader accepted the allegation as true.
• The case became a leading authority on true innuendo and defamatory reference.