Tort Law

Sim v. Stretch

[1936] 2 All ER 1237

Facts

• A dispute arose involving Mrs Stretch and members of her family or household.
• Sim sent a telegram or communication stating, in substance, that Edith had resumed residence at a particular address at Mr Stretch’s request.
• The communication also requested that Edith’s possessions and money be forwarded.
• Stretch alleged that the words implied improper conduct.
• The pleading attempted to attribute meanings concerning:
o immorality;
o an improper relationship;
o domestic misconduct; or
o conduct bringing the claimant into social disrepute.
• The words did not expressly accuse the claimant of adultery, dishonesty, crime or another clearly discreditable act.
• The dispute reached the House of Lords on whether the language was legally capable of bearing a defamatory meaning.

• What general test determines whether words are defamatory.
• Whether the communication would lower the claimant in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally.
• Whether strained or suspicious interpretations should be attributed to ordinary readers.

• Lord Atkin formulated the classic test:
Words are defamatory if they tend to lower the claimant in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally.
• The test focuses upon general social reputation rather than:
o the claimant’s personal sensitivity;
o hostility of a narrow or prejudiced group;
o ridicule without reputational harm; or
o meanings produced only by unreasonable suspicion.
• The words must be read:
o as a whole;
o in their ordinary context; and
o from the standpoint of a reasonable recipient.
• The court should not select the most damaging possible interpretation where ordinary language does not support it.

• The communication stated that Edith had returned to a residence at Mr Stretch’s request.
• It did not expressly describe sexual or immoral conduct.
• The damaging meanings advanced by the claimant depended upon substantial implication and speculation.
• A reasonable recipient would not necessarily understand the statement as accusing Stretch of misconduct.
• At most, it communicated a domestic arrangement or change of residence.
• Defamation law protects reputation against statements causing genuine social discredit.
• It does not convert every ambiguous, embarrassing or unpleasant family communication into an actionable wrong.
• The House of Lords therefore asked whether ordinary respectable persons would think materially less of the claimant because of the actual words.
• Since the communication did not convey a sufficiently discreditable allegation, the defamatory threshold was not reached.
• The claimant’s subjective interpretation could not replace the response of right-thinking members of society generally.

• The House of Lords held that the words were not capable of the defamatory meaning alleged.
• The claim failed.
• Lord Atkin’s formulation became the standard general test for defamatory meaning.
• The judgment emphasised that reputation must be lowered in the eyes of society generally, not merely affected by private offence or speculative implication.