Dow and Jones are both employed by Pundit & Gamble, a firm of stockbrokers.  On the busy train home from work, Dow confides in Jones that “like everyone else in her department, Mrs Scrooge, the firm’s finance manager, is on the fiddle.” 

Dow harbours a grudge against Mrs Scrooge and has no reason to believe that his allegation is true.  Dow’s comment is overheard by Eve, an acquaintance of Mrs Scrooge, who knows that Mrs Scrooge works for the same firm as Dow. 

The next day Eve writes to Mr Scrooge informing him that she has heard that his wife is embezzling funds at work.  Mr Scrooge refuses to believe that this is true and treats the letter as a joke.  Meanwhile, Jones feels obliged to inform the senior partner at Pundit & Gamble of Dow’s allegation, whereupon Mrs Scrooge is immediately dismissed.

Discuss the parties’ rights and liabilities in the law of tort.

A local paper, the Daily Beast, is out to shock. Eric, the editor, announces in a round-up of

local news that:

(i) all the local doctors neglect their patients;

(ii) Sid, the local Law Society Secretary, is untrustworthy and incompetent to hold office;

(iii) Gertie has become engaged to Arthur.

In fact, only two local doctors have been disciplined for neglect; Sid is about to hand over office

in the normal course to his successor; and Gertie has been married to Arthur and living with

him for six weeks. She and Arthur both suffer great embarrassment but nothing more.

Eric is sued for libel by:

(i) two conscientious local doctors, Paul and Quentin;

(ii) Sid; and

(iii) Arthur and Gertie.

Discuss the extent of Eric’s liability to each of them in defamation.

How, if at all, would your answer differ, if Eric’s comments had not been printed in the Daily

Beast but spoken to other guests at a local party

Defamatory statement - Lowers her reputation as an accountant if the allegation is she stealing money (Sim v Stretch)

'All others in her department' - they could also possibly sue depending on the size of the class (Knuffer v London)

'On the fiddle' - False/popular - innuendo. Could still be a defamatory statement (Lewis v Daily Telegraph)

Refers to Claimant and published to Jones but on the crowded train. Foreseeability of the statement being heard by others (Slipper v BBC)

Defences - No truth in statement

Honest Opinion (s3 - not relevant because it states 'no reason to believe the allegation is true)

Malice? (Spiller v Joseph)

Mrs Scrooge = serious harm

Defamatory statement -

Repetition = fresh publication.

Husband? Still publication

Slipper v BBC per Slade LJ - repetition not a defence.

Defences? Objective test - question is whether it would lower her in the estimation of an average person. (Lewis v Daily Telegraph)

Honest Opinion (s3) = based on the facts overhead on a the train from a person she knows works at the company.

Public interest to pass the information on ? but contacted her husband not the police or the company.