Lewis v Daily Telegraph

[HOUSE OF LORDS.]

H. L. (E.)* E U B B E B I M P B O V E M E N T L T D . AND
igg2 ANOTHER APPELLANTS;
Dec. 3, 4, 5, A N D

lVlVlQ. DAILY TELEGEAPH LTD EESPONDENTS.

„196L SAME APPELLANTS;
Mar. 26.
AND

ASSOCIATED NEWSPAPEES LTD. .• . EESPONDENTS.

[ON APPEAL FROM L E W I S V. DAILY TELEGRAPH L T D . ]
Libel and Slander—Justification—Suspicion of crime—Statement that
Fraud Squad inquiring into affairs of limited company—Ordinary
meaning of words admitted to be defamatory, but justified—^Proof
of police inquiry in progress at date of report—Whether justifica­
tion — Whether words reasonably capable of meaning plaintiffs
guilty of fraud.
Libel and Slander—Pleadings—Innuendo—Not supported by extrinsic
facts—Duty to withdraw unproved innuendo from jury—Not
applicable if innuendo relying only on words used—Whether
implied meaning should be pleaded—B.S.C., Ord. 19, r. 6 (2)..
Libel and Slander—Damages for libel — Assessment by jury — Libel of
limited company and chairman — No plea of special damage — No
proof of general loss of business — High awcvrd of damages — Con­
siderations justifying interference with award by appellate court—
Tax position relevant to question of excessive or inadequate award
of damages—Similar libels in two newspapers—Defamation Act,
1952 (15 &■ 16 Geo. 6 * 1 Eliz. 2, c. 66), s. 12.
Damages—Tax element—Libel—Application of Gourley's case.
* Present: LOED REID, LORD JENKINS, LORD MORRIS OF BOBTH­Y­
GEST, LORD HOD SON and LORD DEVLIN.

235
A.C. AND PRIVY COUNCIL.

On December 23, 1958, two national newspapers published on H. L. (B.)
their front pages paragraphs headed respectively " Inquiry on
196d
" Firm by City Police" and " Fraud Squad Probe Firm," which
stated in substance that the police were inquiring into the affairs LEWIS
of a limited company of which one J. L. was chairman. He issued o.
a statement denying that such inquiry was being made and he and UAILY
the company issued writs against the owners of each newspaper, jj T D
the actions of the chairman and the company being later consoli­
dated against each newspaper. The statements of claim alleged
that the words weTe defamatory in their ordinary and natural
meaning. By paragraph 4 it was pleaded in each case that the
words meant and were understood to mean that the plaintiffs had
been guilty of or were suspected by the police of being guilty of
fraud or dishonesty. Particulars given pursuant to R.S.C., Ord. 19,
r. 6 (2), did not support the meaning pleaded in paragraph 4 by
extrinsic facts but were inferences from the words complained of.
No plea of special damage was included. The defendants did not
deny that the words in their ordinary meaning were defamatory but
pleaded justification, namely, that it was true that on December 23,
1958, the police were inquiring into the affairs of the company of
which J. L. was chairman. They denied that the words meant
or were capable of meaning that the plaintiffs were guilty of or
suspected of fraud..
At the trials before Salmon J. and juries, which took place
successively, evidence was given for both parties which showed that
on December 23, 1958, the police, at the instigation of a shareholder,
were inquiring into the affairs of the company of which J . L. was
chairman. No evidence of financial loss as a result of the publica­
tion was put before the jury, though considerable loss was suggested
by J . L.
At the conclusion of the evidence and in the absence of the jury
the judge rejected a submission for the defendants that the innuendo
meaning should be withdrawn from the jury, since it was unsup­
ported by any extrinsic facts, and that only the ordinary meaning,
admittedly defamatory but justified, should be put to the jury. He
directed the jury that the words could bear the meaning alleged in
the innuendo and that they might properly so find. He did not
point out the absence of any cogent evidence as to financial loss ; and
he left to the jury only two questions, namely, (1) whether they
found for the plaintiffs or for the defendants, and (2) if for the
plaintiffs, what sums of damages. The jury in the first action
returned verdicts of £25,000 damages for the chairman and £75,000
for the company; and in the second action two days later, in which
there were factors which a jury might be entitled.to take into
account as aggravating the damages, a different jury awarded the
chairman £17,000 damages and the company £100,000: —
Held, (1) that in a libel action the judge must rule whether
the words are capable of bearing each of the defamatory meanings,
if there be more than one, put forward by the plaintiff, whether
expressly pleaded or not, if such meaning is alleged to be inferred

?36 HOUSE OF LORDS­.­, [19.6.4]

H. L ( E l ^ r o m ^ e natural and ordinary meaning of the words used (post,
pp. 258, 259, 260, 265, 286).
19 3
" (2) That (Lord Morris dissenting) from the words in question in
LEWIS their natural and ordinary meaning an ordinary man without
*. special knowledge would not have inferred that the appellant was
TELEGRAPH guilty of fraud and accordingly the jury should have been directed
LTD. that they were not capable of bearing that particular meaning
(post, pp. 259, 260, 274, 286).
Per Lord Morris. Where no innuendo is pleaded, it is not
essential for the plaintiff to plead what he says are the implied
meanings of the words (post, p. 265),
Per Lord Hodson. I t is desirable that the pleader should allege
in his statement of claim what the words in their natural and
ordinary meaning convey provided he makes it clear that he is not
relying upon a true innuendo which gives a separate cause of action
and requires a separate verdict from the jury (post, p. 273).
Per Lord Devlin. The ordinary meaning of words and the
meaning enlarged by innuendo give rise to separate causes of action,
but there has also been a divergence between the popular and the
legal meaning of " innuendo." The natural and ordinary meaning
of words for the purposes of defamation is not their natural and
ordinary meaning for other purposes of law. There must be added
to the implications which a court is prepared to make as a matter of
construction all such insinuations and innuendos as could reason­
ably be read into them by the ordinary man. Consequently, there
must be three paragraphs in a statement of claim : (1) a paragraph
setting out the defamatory words; (2) if they do not speak for
themselves, a paragraph setting out those innuendoes and indirect
meanings going beyond their literal meaning, which the pleader
claims to be inherent in them; and (3) if there is the necessary
material a paragraph pleading a secondary meaning or legal
innuendo supported by particulars under R.S.C., Ord. 19, r. 6 (2)
(post, pp. 279, 280).
Capital and Counties Bank Ltd. v. George Henty & Sons (1882)
7 App.Cas. 741, H . L . ; Grubb v. Bristol United Press Ltd. [1963]
1 Q.B. 309; [1962] 3 W.L.R. 25; [1962] 2 All E.R. 380, C.A., and
Sim v. Stretch (1936) 52 T.L.R. 669; [1936] 2 All E.R. 1237, C.A.
applied.
, Loughans v. Odhams Press Ltd. [1963] 1 Q.B. 299; [1962]
2 W.L.R. 692; [1962] 1 All E.R. 404, C.A. distinguished.
Turner v. Metro­Goldwyn­Mayer Pictures Ltd. (1950) 66 T.L.R.
(Pt. 1) 342; [1950] 1 All E.R. 449, ILL. ; Cookson v. Hareivood
[1932] 2 K.B. 478n., C.A.; and Stubbs Ltd. v. Bussell [1913]
A.C. 386; 29 T.L.R. 409, H.L., considered.
(3) That the damages awarded in each case were excessive.
In such a case, pursuant to section 12 of the Defamation Act,
1952, each jury should be directed to consider how far the damage
suffered by the plaintiffs can reasonably be attributed solely to the
libel with which they are concerned, and how far it ought to be
regarded as the joint result of the two libels, and must bear in

A.C. AND PRIVY COUNCIL. 237

mind that the plaintiffs ought not to be compensated­ twice for H. L. (E;)
the same loss (post, p. 261).
In assessing damages for loss of profit arising from libel the
jury should be directed to make an allowance for the obligation LEWIS
to pay income tax or surtax out of it had it been earned (post, o.
p. 262). TH^RLH
British Transport Commission v. Gourley [1956] A.C. 185; IJTD
[1956] 2 W.L.R. 4 1 ; £1955] 3 All E.R. 796, H.L. applied. '.
(4) That, accordingly, a new trial of each action should be
ordered.
Decision of the Court of Appeal [1963] 1 Q.B. 340; [1962] 3
W.L.R. 50; [1962] 2 All E.R. 698, C.A. affirmed.

. APPEAL from the Court of Appeal (Holroyd Eearce and Davies
L . J J . and H a v e r s J . ) .
The first appeal was made by leave of the Court of Appeal by
the appellants, E u b b e r I m p r o v e m e n t L t d . and J o h n Lewis, who
were the plaintiffs in two consolidated actions, from an order of
the Court of Appeal dated April 4, 1962, whereby the verdicts
given and the judgments entered for the respective plaintiffs
against t h e defendants, Daily Telegraph L t d . , t h e present
respondents, for £100,000 (being as to £75,000 for Eubber
I m p r o v e m e n t L t d . and as to £25,000 for J o h n Lewis) on the trial
of these actions before Salmon J . and a jury on J u l y 18 and 19,
1961, were wholly set aside and a new trial ordered. T h e second
appeal was made by leave of the Court of Appeal by the same
appellants, who were the plaintiffs in two other consolidated
actions, from an order of the Court of Appeal dated April 4,
1962, whereby the verdicts given and the judgments entered for
the respective plaintiffs against the defendants, Associated News­
papers L t d . , the present respondents, for £117,000 (being as to
£100,000 for Eubber Improvements L t d . and as to £17,000 for
J o h n Lewis) on the trial of these actions before Salmon J . and a
different jury on July 20 and 21, 1961, were wholly set aside
and a new trial ordered.
Daily Telegraph Ltd. were the owners of the " Daily Tele­
" graph " and Associated Newspapers L t d . were the owners of
the " D a i l y M a i l . " On December 23, 1958, they published
respectively on their front pages the following reports. The report
in the '' Daily Telegraph ' ' r e a d :

" I N Q U I R Y ON FLEM B Y CITY P O L I C E
" Daily Telegraph Eeporter.
" Officers of the City of London Fraud Squad are inquiring
" into the affairs of Eubber Improvement L t d . and its subsidiary
A.C. 1964. 16

238 HOUSE OP LORDS [1964]

H. L. (B.) " companies. The investigation was requested after criticisms
1963 " of the chairman's statement and the accounts by a shareholder
L " at the recent company meeting.
». " The chairman of the company, which has an authorised
TELEGRAPH " capital of £1 million, is Mr. John Lewis, former Socialist M.P.
LTD
­ "for Bolton."
The report in the " Daily Mail " read :
" FRAUD SQUAD PROBE FIRM
" The City Fraud Squad, under Superintendent Francis Lea,
" are inquiring into the affairs of Rubber Improvement Ltd.
" Chairman of the £4,000,000 group, whose shares have dropped
" from 22s. last year to 7s. 4$d. yesterday, is Mr. John Lewis,
" former Socialist M.P.
" The company specialises in flexible rubber conveyor belting
" designed for the National Coal Board."
The facts leading up to and surrounding the publication
differed to some extent in respect of the two publications, but
the general effect was the same.
On the same day as the publication Rubber Improvement Ltd.
and John Lewis began four actions by writ claiming damages
for libel against the two newspaper companies, each of the plain­
tiffs suing each of the newspaper companies. Subsequently the
two actions against Daily Telegraph Ltd. were consolidated, as
were the two actions against Associated Newspapers Ltd.
The relevant parts of the pleadings in the actions relating to
the '' Daily Telegraph '' were as follows:
By paragraph 1 of the statement of claim of Rubber Improve­
ment Ltd.: " The plaintiffs are and were at all material times
" a public company carrying on a large and extensive business
" both on its own account and through subsidiary companies
" mainly in the plastics and rubber industries."
By paragraph 2 it was pleaded that the defendants were
proprietors of the " Daily Telegraph."
By paragraph 3 it was pleaded that the defendants " falsely
" and maliciously printed and published " the words complained
of.
Paragraph 4 was as follows: " By the said words the defen­
" dants meant and were understood to mean that the affairs of
" the plaintiffs and/or its subsidiaries were conducted fraudulently
" or dishonestly or in such a way that the police suspected that
" their affairs were so conducted.

239
A.C. AND PRIVY COUNCIL.

" Particulars pursuant to E.S.C., Order 19, Eule 6 (2) H. L. (B.)
" (1) The plaintiffs repeat paragraph 1 hereof. 1963
" (2) The plaintiffs will rely on the tone and heading of the LEWIS
" said article. «•
'' (3) It is generally known that the City Fraud Squad investi­ TELEGRAPH
D
" gate serious cases of company fraud." "
(The provisions of Ord. 19, r. 6 (2) require a plaintiff who
alleges that words have been used in a defamatory sense other
than their ordinary meaning to give particulars of the facts and
matters on which he relies in support of that sense.)
In the statement of claim of John Lewis paragraph 1 set out
that he was chairman and managing director of Eubber Improve­
ment Ltd., and paragraphs 2 and 3 were identical with the
corresponding paragraphs in the statement of claim of that
company.
Paragraph 4 was as follows: '' By the said words the defen­
" dants meant and were understood to mean that the plaintiff
" had been guilty or was suspected by the police of having been
" guilty of fraud or dishonesty in connection with the affairs of
" the said company and/or its subsidiaries and/or that he had
" caused or permitted the affairs of the said company and/or
" its subsidiaries to be conducted fraudulently or dishonestly or
" in such a way that the police suspected that the affairs of the
" said company and/or its subsidiaries had been so conducted
" and/or that the plaintiff was unfit to hold either of his said
"offices."
The particulars were identical with those in the company's
statement of claim with the addition: " (4) the plaintiff will rely
" on section 188 of the Companies Act, 1948."
The defences to the two actions were identical. By para­
graph 1, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the statement of claim were
admitted. By paragraph 2 publication was admitted.
By paragraph 3 : " The said words in their natural and
" ordinary meaning are true in substance and in fact."
By paragraph 4: " The said words do not bear and were not
" understood to bear and are incapable of bearing the meanings
" attributed to them in paragraph 4 of the statement of claim."
By paragraph 5 : " I f the said words bear such meanings
" which is denied the defendants say in mitigation of damages
" that on the day after the publication complained of they
" published a statement by Mr. John Lewis expressing his view

240
HOUSE OP LORDS [1964]

H. L. (E.) " of the facts. In any event the plaintiffs have claimed damages
1963 '' for the same or a similar libel from Associated Newspapers
L B W I 8 " L w . " ■■; ■

"• The plaintiffs made a request for particulars of the justifica­
TBLEGBAPH tion which had been pleaded. This matter was dealt with
D
" before the master in chambers, then on appeal to the judge
in chambers, and then on appeal in the Court of Appeal.
The master made the limited order that particulars should
be given of the request for an investigation, stating by
whom such request was made and when and the nature of the
investigation requested. The judge allowed an appeal from that
order, which he varied by ordering particulars of the facts and
matters relied upon in support of the allegation that the words in
their natural and ordinary meaning were true in substance and
in fact. It was agreed that in the Court of Appeal counsel for the
" Daily Telegraph " made it clear that justification was only being
asserted in regard to the limited fact that officers of the City of
London Fraud Squad had (after being requested as stated)
inquired into the affairs of the company and its subsidiary com­
panies. Upon that being made clear the Court of Appeal set
aside the order of the judge. Accordingly, the limited order made
by the master was restored.
The pleadings in the actions relating to the " Daily Mail "
were substantially similar.
After the evidence was concluded at the trial of the first
actions a submission was made on July 19, 1961, in the absence
of the jury that the innuendo should in each case be withdrawn
from the jury. There was no note as to the terms of the sub­
mission that was made, but it was the recollection of counsel
who made it that it was not limited to a submission that the two
paragraphs should be withdrawn because the particulars did not
support the innuendo or were not proved, but that it extended
to a submission that, apart from any question of an innuendo,
the words themselves in their ordinary meaning were incapable
of bearing the meanings set out by the plaintiffs in those
paragraphs. The judge's ruling was as follows:
Salmon J . : " I am inclined to think that no innuendo here
" was necessary. I can well understand, however, that where
" there is any doubt about the matter the learned pleader very
" properly puts in an innuendo. As counsel for the defendants
" candidly admits, that cannot do the defendants any harm,
" because it forewarns them of what the plaintiff is going, to

A.C. AND PRIVY COUNCIL. 241

" submit the words mean. Where there is no innuendo, it may H. L. (E.)
" in some cases be difficult for a defendant to know. Even 1953
" although the innuendo may strictly be unnecessary, I do not Z
" think that in the exercise of my discretion I ought to strike o.
" i t out; nor need it be amended. I can only say that the TELEGBAPH
LTD
" practice was at one time always to plead an innuendo. The ­
" practice has altered, fortunately, so that innuendoes now are
" rarely pleaded, but there may be cases—and I agree with Mr.
" Duncan that this is one of them.—where there may be a doubt
" whether it is necessary to plead an innuendo. Where there is
" such a doubt, there can be no harm in pleading it. I t certainly
" cannot hurt the defendants. I do not accept the argument
" that by pleading an innuendo one is necessarily alleging
" affirmatively that the words in their ordinary and natural
" meaning mean something other than that which is pleaded in
" the innuendo. I do not propose to make any order on the
" application of the defendants.
" Mr. Faulks and Mr. Milmo, while the jury are coming back
" I may say that I propose only to leave one question to the jury:
" Do you find for the plaintiff or for the defendant, and, if for the
" plaintiff, how much? I will hear either of you if you wish to
" urge me to leave a series of questions to the jury."
Mr. Faulks: " N o , my Lord; I am quite in accord with what
" your Lordship says."
Mr. Milmo: " My Lord, so am I . "
Salmon J., having read the statement in the " Daily Tele­
" graph " to the jury, said in his summing­up: " This case very
" largely depends on what in your view those words mean.
" The question is, what would they have meant to the ordinary
" man and woman when he or she read them on the morning
" of December 23? It has been said that the ordinary man,
" with his cup of tea in one hand, reading this paper, does
" not read it with a suspicious, tortuous and sinister mind.
" That is very true, you may think. On the other hand,
'' it has been said that when the ordinary man spreads his
" paper out on the table and reads it with his cup of tea
" in one hand, he does not necessarily hold the scales of
" justice in delicate equipoise in the other. You have got to
" think of the ordinary man. How would the ordinary man
" understand this? The two views which have been canvassed
" before you are these: Mr. Faulks has said: Well, the ordinary
" man is not very suspicious; he would just regard it as a piece of

242
HOUSE OP LORDS [1964]

H. L. (B.) " intelligence, the police are looking into it, and it would not
1963 " really produce any other effect upon his mind. Mr. Milmo
LBWIS " says: Well, the ordinary man seeing this ' City Police. Officers
v. " ' of the City of London Fraud Squad are inquiring into the
TELEGRAPH " ' affairs of Eubber Improvement Ltd.'—the ordinary man, not
LTD. " being any more suspicious than his neighbour, would immedi­
" ately say to himself, says Mr. Milmo—either he would say to
" himself: ' There is fraud here, or the police would not be look­
ing into it ' or, he would say to himself: ' At any rate, there
" ' is enough in this for the police to suspect that there is fraud.'
" I cannot really help you. Those are the two rival contentions.
" I t is for you to say what it means. When you read the news­
" papers, what would you have thought when you read that?
" You see, the only way you can get at what the ordinary man
" and woman think is by getting a jury of 12 people together,
" who are ordinary men and women, and asking them what they
" would have thought. You may ask yourselves, what would
" people in the City think if they woke up one morning and read
" that in the paper? Members of the jury, anything is defama­
" tory which tends to lower you in the esteem of right thinking
" people. But if anyone reading this thought—any ordinary
" reasonable man reading this thought—that it meant that Mr.
" Lewis had been guilty of fraud; or that the police suspected that
" Mr. Lewis had been guilty of fraud; or that he had allowed the
" affairs of the company to be conducted fraudulently or dis­
" honestly; or the police suspected that he had, would that tend
" to lower him in the esteem of right thinking people? And as
" far as the company is concerned, it is suggested by the plaintiffs
" t h a t these words mean to the ordinary man that the affairs of
" t h e company and its subsidiaries were• conducted fraudulently
" or dishonestly; or that the police suspected that they were so
" conducted. That is what is said by the plaintiffs these words
" would convey to the ordinary man and woman, and that the
" ordinary man and woman would not merely say to themselves:
" ' Oh well, it is a very interesting piece of intelligence: the police
" ' are inquiring into it. There may be a routine examination.
" ' We do not draw any conclusions at all.' As I say, consider
" that you get up one morning in a perfectly reasonable frame of
" mind; you are not feeling suspicious particularly, but you have
" a look at that: what would it mean to you? " The judge
then went on to deal with the issue of justification and to
direct the jury that if they thought that the meaning conveyed
was no more than that the police were making an inquiry, then

243
A.C. AND PRIVY COUNCIL.

they had to consider whether the defendants had proved t h a t H. L. (E.)
an inquiry had been made. The judge reminded the jury of 1963
the evidence and said: " D o e s t h a t constitute an inquiry into T,BWIS
" these m a t t e r s by the police? You m a y think it does: you may ».
think it does n o t . " TELEGBAPH
At the second trial there was no submission that the innuendo ^­|TP'
should be struck out. Salmon J. left the alleged innuendo
meanings to the jury as possible, natural and ordinary meanings
of the words complained of.

Helenus Milmo Q.G. and P. Colin Duncan for the appellants.
Neville Faulks Q.G. and Hugh Davidson for the respondents,
Daily Telegraph Ltd.
Neville Faulks Q.G. and David Hirst for the respondents,
Associated Newspapers Ltd.

Helenus Milmo Q.C. The essential question is whether these
words are reasonably capable of meaning that there has been
fraud on the part of the appellants. If it be ruled that such words
mean that the plaintiff was suspected of having committed fraud
or has so conducted his affairs as to give rise to suspicion of
fraud or to justify a police inquiry, that can only be justified by
proving that he has committed fraud. Paragraph 4 of the state­
ment of claim in John Lewis's case said that the words meant
that he " had been guilty or was suspected . . . of having been
" guilty of fraud." Justification by the defendants involved the
same onus of proof. A defendant who has said, " X is suspected
"of murder," cannot justify by showing that someone does
suspect him. There can be no distinction between the two
allegations.
The question libel or no libel must be left to the jury, but
the court must rule whether the words are capable of a defama­
tory meaning. Here the jury found that the words conveyed
more than their literal meaning.
The principles applicable here are to be found in Gatley on
Libel and Slander, 5th ed., p. 155, para. 255. The questions
what words are reasonably capable of meaning and what a
defendant must justify are closely connected. As to the position
when a defamatory statement is put forward by way of rumour
or report only, see Salmond on Torts, 13th ed., p. 358. (The
statement is the same in the 10th edition at p. 392.) If one says
that X is suspected of theft it is not enough to put forward the

244
HOUSE OP LORDS [1964]

H. L. (E.) facts that could make a reasonable man suspect him. The s.tate­
1963 ments (a) " X is suspected of fraud " a n d (b) " X is alleged to
LEWIS " have been guilty of fraud " are both defamatory of X but they
o. are only so because, and to the extent which, they suggest
TELEGBAPH actual guilt of fraud. Neither statement asserts in terms that
ro
" X is guilty; both recognise the possibility that he may be
innocent. The law requires that the defamatory sting must be
justified and accordingly nothing short of actual proof of fraud
will justify either statement.
The words here used are capable of having the meanings set
out in paragraph 4 of the statement of claim. An ordinary
reasonable man would have concluded that there was fraud or at
least that the police reasonably suspected fraud, since the Fraud
Squad only investigates cases of fraud. The article was put
before the average reader as a matter of front page importance
in a national newspaper and not just a piece of colourless
information.
On the authorities a statement that A is suspected of a crime
can be justified only by showing that he is in fact guilty of it:
see English & Scottish Co­operative Properties etc. v. Odhams
Press Ltd,1; Watkin v. Hull2; Monson v. Tussaud's Ltd.3 and
Cadam v. Beaverbrook Newspapers Ltd.*
Until recently the word " innuendo " was used loosely in
three different senses: (1) Any extended meaning going beyond
the literal meaning of the words used but not depending on the
reader's knowledge of any extraneous facts stated in the libel
itself. (2) A hidden meaning due to the existence of extraneous
facts not stated or appearing from the libel itself but known to
the readers. (3) The class of case where there is nothing in the
libel itself to identify the individual referred to but where there
are extraneous facts which would enable one or more people to
identify him: see Bruce v. Odhams Press Ltd.6 The boundary
between classes (1) and (2) is not easy to draw and may change
with time. Thus 20 years ago everyone would have understood
what " Quisling " meant, but now a person aged 20 might not
understand.

1
[1940] 1 K.B. 440; 56 T.L.E. < [1959] 1 Q.B. 413; [1959] 2
195; [1940] 1 All E.E. 1, C.A. W.L.R. 324; [1959] 1 All E.R. 453,
2 (1936) 52 T.L.E. 669; [1936] C.A.
2 All E.E. 1237, H.L. « [1936] 1 Q.B. 697; 52 T.L.E.
3 [1894] 1 Q.B. 671, 676, 677; 227; [1936] 1 All E.E. 287, C.A.
10 T.L.E. 227, C.A.

245
A.C. AND PRIVY COUNCIL.

It was as a result of what was said in paragraphs 162 to H. L. (E.)
166 of the Eeport of the Committee on the Law of Defamation 1963
(1948, Cmd. 7536) that Ord. 19, r. 6 (2), was drafted, because £ ^
defendants were being taken by surprise by the nature of the ".
evidence called to support meanings pleaded in the innuendo. TELEGRAPH
LTD
The plaintiff is now required to give particulars of the facts and ­
matters relied on.
Here the defendants denied that the words meant any of the
things alleged in paragraph 4 of the statement of claim and
pleaded that they were true in their natural and ordinary
meaning. Salmon J. dealt with the situation correctly in holding
that no innuendo was necessary here and in leaving only one
question to the jury, namely, whether they found for the plain­
tiffs or the defendants and, if for the plaintiffs, how much in
damages. The words were admitted to have a defamatory
meaning and in directing the jury the judge was not entitled to
rule out one particular defamatory meaning. It was not for the
judge to distinguish between the meaning that the plaintiffs were
guilty of fraud and that they were suspected of fraud. Even if
the judge was wrong in the course he took, the respondents
cannot take this point now, because they did not object at the
time.
One must look at the words, not as a lawyer would, but as
an ordinary man would. There are two contrasting authorities
in the Court of Appeal—Loughans v. Odhams Press Ltd.7 and
Grubb v. Bristol United Press Ltd.8 The present case is com­
parable to the example given by Holroyd Pearce L.J. in the
latter case.9 See also Hough v. London Express Newspaper
Ltd.10 It is not desired to challenge the judgment in Grubb's
case, 11 save in so far as there are dicta to indicate that it is
permissible to plead the natural and ordinary meaning of the
words complained of, because that is a matter entirely for the
jury. If in the present case a paragraph had been added to
the statement of claim after paragraph 4 pleading alternatively
that the words in their natural and ordinary meaning meant
what was alleged, that would have been pleading something
which was unnecessary, that is, the natural and ordinary meaning.

' [1963] 1 Q.B. 299; [1962] 2 » [1963] 1 Q.B. 309, 327­328.
W . L . E . 592; [1962] 1 All E . B . 404, 1° [1940] 2 K.B. 507, 515; 56
C:A. T.L.B. 758; [1940] 3 All E . B . 31,
s [1963] 1 Q.B. 309; [1962] 3 C.A.
W . L . E . 29; [1962] 2 All E . B . 380, " [1963] 1 Q.B. 309.
C.A.

246 HOUSE OP LORDS [1964]

H. L. (B.) The plaintiffs cannot be in a worse position for not having pleaded
1963 something which was unnecessary. Till after 1948 there were
LEWIS pleaded without distinction innuendoes which represented a true
». secondary meaning derived from extrinsic facts and false
TELEGRAPH innuendoes based merely on inferences not depending on
LTD
­ extraneous matters. So from the reports one cannot now deter­
mine into which category they fell. As to cases where two
defamatory matters are complained of, see Emcee v. Sunday
Pictorial Newspapers {1920) Ltd.,12 but in most cases two awards
are not asked for.
Capital & Counties Bank Ltd. v. George Henty & Sons 13 has
been much misunderstood and has been long used by defendants
seeking to contend that, if one non­defamatory meaning can
be found, the plaintiff is prevented from succeeding, but it does
not decide that. It decides that where there is a bare statement
of fact for which there may be a number of possible underlying
reasons only one of which has a defamatory significance, the
words cannot reasonably be regarded as defamatory merely
because of the existence of that one possible underlying reason.
For example, take the statement, " X has got Y's watch."
There might be a hundred innocent reasons why he had it, not
reflecting on X at all, although one possible reason was that he
stole it, but it would be unreasonable to spell out of the state­
ment the defamatory imputation of larceny. Further, the answer
to the question whether words can reasonably convey a particular
meaning to the persons to whom they are published must be
conditioned by who they are. Thus in Capital & Counties Bank
v. George Henty & Sons ls the words complained of were pub­
lished by the bank in a letter to its customers. If the same words
had been published as front page news in a newspaper to the
public in general, they might reasonably have conveyed a very
different and defamatory maning.
A similar sort of case is Nevill v. Fine Art & General Insurance
Co. Lta\.,li which dealt with the underlying reasons behind a
letter which was literally true. There might have been a hundred
non­derogatory reasons for what was written. See also Fraser
on Libel and Slander, 7th ed., pp. 12­13, and Stubbs Ltd. v.
Russell."

12 [1939] 2 All E.E. 384. " [1897] A.C. 68; 13 T.L.R. 97,
13
(1880) 5 C.P.D. 514, C.A.; H.L.
(1882) 7 App.Cas. 741, H.L. " [1913] A.C. 386, 391; 29 T.L.R.
409, H.L.

A.C. AND PRIVY COUNCIL. 247

In the present case the Court of Appeal relied on the Capital H. L. (E.)
<£• Counties Bank case,16 but that is no authority on the question 1963
whether the judge has or has not any function left once he has T
held that words are capable of a defamatory meaning. v.
17
Cassidy v. Daily Mirror Newspapers Ltd., does not help in TELBORAPH
p
the present case. Beliance is placed on Cookson v. Harwood.1* "
19
See also Chapman v. Ellesmere. English & Scottish Co­opera­
tive Properties Mortgage and Investment Society Ltd. v. Odhams
Press Ltd.20 is very like the present case.
There may be cases where words are defamatory in their
ordinary meaning and more defamatory still because of the
innuendo. Then it would be wrong not to leave the two issues
to the jury. See Polovstoff v. Illustrated Newspapers Ltd.,21
which is very close to the present case, in considering whether a
statement that an allegation has been made can reasonably be
understood to convey an allegation of the commission of the
actual offence.
As to damages, these are essentially for the jury and an
appeal court will only interfere in very exceptional cases. As to
damages for a trading corporation, see Gatley on Libel and
Slander, 5th ed., pp. 400­401. As to punitive damages, see
Yousoupoff v. Metro­Goldwyn­Mayer Pictures Ltd.22 As to
section 12 of the Defamation Act, 1952, which allows a defendant
to give evidence of other damages recovered by the plaintiff in
respect of words to the same effect as those on which the action
is founded, this sets juries an almost impossible problem. The
judge could have done no more than he did in relation to the
section. I t is a misfortune that the defendants did not avail
themselves of section 5 of the Law of Libel Amendment Act,
1888, dealing with the consolidation of actions.
As to the assessment of damages, see Phillips v. South
Western Railway Co.23; Praed v. Graham24; Greenlands Ltd. v.
Wilmshurst and London Association for Protection of Trade 25;
16
7 App.Caa. 741. 21 (1953) The Times, November 24
" [1929] 2 K.B. 331. (p. 7); November 25 (p. 11); (1954)
18
[1932] 2 K . B . 278n., 285n., T h e T i m e s , F e b r u a r y 26 (p. 5), C.A.
C.A. 22 (1934) 50 T . L . E . 581, C.A.
" [1932] 2 K . B . 4 3 1 ; 48 T . L . E . 23 (1879) 4 Q . B . D . 406.
309. 2" (1889) 24 Q . B . D . 5 3 , C.A.
20 [1940] 1 K . B . 4 4 0 ; 56 T . L . E . 25 [ 1 9 1 3 ] 3 K , B 507, c . A . ; [1916]
195; [1940] 1 All E . B . 1, C.A. 2 A.C. 1 5 ; 32 T . L . E . 2 8 1 , H . L .

248
HOUSE OP LORDS [1964]

H. L. (B.) Ley v. Hamilton26 and Tolley v. J. S. Fry & Sons Ltd.27 The
1963 jury must consider: (1) This was in any view a very serious libel
LBWIS and potentially most damaging to a city man and a trading cor­
«• poration. (2) It was given front­page circulation in national
TELEGRAPH newspapers. (3) It was of such a nature that it was impossible
to catch up with it and refute it effectively. (4) It was repre­
hensible and inexcusable because, if there was to be a prosecution
the newspapers had no business to anticipate it by making a
" scoop," while, if there was to be no prosecution, it must have
been apparent to anyone that enormous damage would be done
to the plaintiffs.
In awarding the damages they did the juries must have taken
the view that the words meant that the plaintiffs were actually
guilty of fraud.
Colin Duncan following. The whole question of innuendo is
not academic but is vital to this appeal. One must consider what
is the scope of the duty of the judge to tell the jury how far
words are reasonably capable in law of bearing a specific defama­
tory meaning suggested in the course of the trial. It is conceded
that where no innuendo is pleaded the judge, in directing the
jury, should say whether the meaning suggested is one which
the words are reasonably capable of bearing. In such a case
he should tell the jury that it is for them to decide what the
words mean and he should tell them what are the factors they
should bear in mind in so determining. If a far­fetched meaning
has been suggested, he should tell them they may decide whether
the words bear that meaning, although he would not so direct them
if he had made up his mind that the words were not capable of
bearing that meaning. It is the judge's duty to rule whether in
law the words are capable of a defamatory meaning. In the present
case it was admitted that they were defamatory. It is the judge's
duty to rule whether the words are or are not capable in law of
the innuendoes attributed to them.
Here the judge was asked to rule whether the words were
capable in law of bearing the meanings pleaded in the innuendo
and he ruled that they were capable of bearing all those meanings.
Those meanings did not arise from counsel's submissions but
were pleaded. No other meanings were canvassed. The most
26 (1935) 153 L.T. 384, H . L . " [ig 3 o] i K . B . 467; 46 T.L.E.
108, C.A.; [1931] A.C. 333; 47
T.L.E. 351, H . L .

249
A.C. AND PRIVY COUNCIL.

that can be said is that, if the judge had thought the words were H. L. (B.)
incapable of the meanings alleged, he should have told the jury. 1963
From the Common Law Procedure Act, 1852, until 1949 no L
one would have questioned the propriety of pleading the defama­ 0.
tory meaning in an innuendo and it was very rare for a statement TBLBQBAPH
of claim not to contain an innuendo paragraph, but recently there LTD.
has been talk of " inferential meanings " and " false innuendoes."
Formerly the courts were only concerned with the natural and
ordinary meaning of words and an innuendo meaning, and that is
still so. There is no magic in the mere word '' innuendo.'' I t would
not offend the proprieties for a judge to rule that some innuendoes
were capable of a defamatory meaning and others were not.
The first proposition submitted is that at all times before
1852, between 1852 and 1949 and since then, when a plaintiff
has complained that the words in question have a sinister meaning
by reason of certain facts extrinsic to the actual words and known
to certain publishees, he must at the trial prove the existence
of those facts, whether those facts make otherwise innocent
words defamatory or whether those facts add additional and
graver meanings to words already defamatory in their natural
and ordinary meaning. In Cassidy's case, 28 Hough's case 29 and
the Capital & Counties Bank case 30 the extrinsic facts were vital.
Extrinsic facts are certain facts known to the publishees but for
which they could not have understood the words to have a
defamatory meaning. To say that Mr. X is very good at adver­
tising would only be defamatory of him if he were a barrister
and advertising was contrary to professional etiquette. From
1852 to 1949 it was common form to plead an innuendo. It was
always called an " innuendo " without epithet or qualification.
Looking back from 1962, one can discover three types of
innuendo: (a) What would now be called the '' true innuendo,''
that is, an innuendo depending on the establishment of extrinsic
facts which did not have to be pleaded (see, for instance, Hough's
case 31 ). The test was what a reasonable person would have
thought. (See the Eeport of the Committee on the Law of
Defamation, pp. 38­39.) Ultimately the jury has to decide what
the words mean. The rules referred to are rules of practice and
not of construction, (b) The futile innuendo was no more than
the recitation of the natural and ordinary meaning of the words.
(c) A so­called innuendo which set out sinister meanings derived,

28 [1929] 2 K.B. 331. so 7 App.Cas. 741.
2» [1940] 2 K.B. 507. " [1940] 2 K.B. 507.

250
HOUSE OP LORDS [1964]

H. L. (E.) not from any extrinsic facts in the narrow sense and equally
1963 not from the natural and ordinary meaning of the words in a
T_ narrow sense, but from a variety of other matters such as the
«• circumstances of publication, the general tone of the publication
or
TELEGRAPH even the remarkable flexibility of the English language. These
LTD
' might be the appearance of the words complained of with
banner headlines in a normally sober publication. Or the literal
meaning might be innocent but the whole tone one of sarcasm,
for example " Brutus is an honourable man " i n " Julius Caesar."
Or expressions like "Quisling," " p a n s y " or "dismissed"
might have a special meaning. See also Morris v. Sanders
Universal Products Ltd.32 and Birne v. N. S. L. Ltd.33
The second proposition is that from 1852 to 1949 it was per­
missible to plead as innuendoes meanings other than the natural
and ordinary meaning of the words complained of when those
meanings did not depend on the existence of any extrinsic facts
but might be attached to them inferentially for one reason or
another: see John Lang & Co, Ltd. v. Langlands.3* The require­
ment for'an innuendo has not substantially changed. After 1852
there was the same distinction between the bare meaning of the
words and filling them out with an extended meaning, which was
described as an innuendo. The advantage from the defendant's
point of view was that he knew what case he had to meet and
what was the plaintiff's version of what the words meant. The
only result of the change of practice required by the Bules of
the Supreme Court in 1949, Ord. 19, r. 6 (2), was that, when
the plaintiff sought to rely on extrinsic facts, he had to give
particulars of them, pleading in his statement of claim the facts
and circumstances on which he relied, so that the defendant
should know what case he had to meet. From 1949 until
Loughans 's case 35 masters habitually struck out innuendoes
unsupported by facts as required by that rule; one could not plead
an innuendo without giving particulars. Innuendoes have never
been pleaded in the alternative. Loughans's case 35 decided that
it was permissible to have separate paragraphs in a statement
of claim setting out as an innuendo the natural and ordinary
meaning of words in an extended sense and that then it was not
necessary to provide any particulars under Ord. 19, r. 6 (2).

32 [1954] 1 W.L.E. 67; [1954] 1 34 1916 S.C.(H.L.) 102, 105; 114
All E.E. 47, C.A. L.T. 665, 667; 32 T.L.E. 255, H . L .
" (1957) The Time 8 , April 12 (p. 35 [1963] 1 Q.B. 299.
13).

251
A.C. AND PRIVY COUNCIL.

Neville Faulks Q.G. This pleading in paragraph 4 of the H. L. (E.)
statement of claim was intended to be a true innuendo, but it 1963
failed because it did not establish that the words complained of LBWIB
bore more than their natural and ordinary meaning. Two causes «•
of action were alleged, whereas only one should have been: see TELEGRAPH
Sin v. Stretch.36 It is proper that a plaintiff should be entitled • LTD­
to say that words in their natural and ordinary meaning mean
so and so, and when he has also special facts which, if known
to a particular class of persons, would give the words a further
meaning, he should be entitled to plead that as a second string
to his bow. But here there was no evidence of extrinsic facts
to support the innuendo, which should therefore have been with­
drawn from the jury. The defendants denied that the words bore
the meaning alleged in paragraph 4 of the statement of claim,
but the natural and ordinary meaning was admitted and was
justified, although the result of it might be that readers of the
words might decide to wait till the affair had blown over before
inviting Lewis to dinner or buying shares in his company. The
Fraud Squad having received a report went into the matter as
bloodhounds do. They did not suspect; they merely inquired.
Eumour and suspicion are not the same thing, though in some
cases they may be equated, according to the meaning of the
words used in the particular case. No one could construe the
" Daily Telegraph " article as saying that the plaintiffs had been
guilty of fraud. The test is: Could a reasonable person think
that it meant to impute fraud? Further, to be guilty of fraud
and to be suspected of fraud are not the same thing.

The contention that where words are admitted to have a
defamatory meaning the judge, in directing the jury, is not
entitled to rule out a particular defamatory meaning, is not open
to the plaintiffs. Fox's' Libel Act, 1792, does not support the
submission that this is the position in a civil action for libel. It
was declaring the criminal law as it then was: see Brett L.J. in
the Capital and Counties Bank case 37 and Spencer Bower on
Actionable Defamation, 2nd ed., pp. 305­307.
Stubbs Ltd. v. Russell38 is not helpful, because of the differ­
ence of Scottish practice. A judge in determining whether words
are capable of a defamatory meaning cannot proceed in vacuo.
Judges have circumscribed the natural and ordinary meaning of
36
(1936) 52 T.L.R. 669, 670, 671; " 5 C.P.D. 514, 539.
[1936] 2 All K B . 1237, H . L . ™ [1913] A.C. 386.

252 HOUSE OF LORDS [1964]

H. L. (B.) words when they were prima facie defamatory. See Gookson v.
1963 Harewood39; Harvey v. French*"; Gompertz v. Levy*1; Hawkes
LBwia v. Hawkey" and Blagg v. Stmt.*3 One should not approach
o. words with a suspicious mind but look at them as a reasonable
TBLBORAPH man would look at them, finding what a reasonable reader would
LTD
' think and leaving out the lunatic fringe on either side. One
must also take into account the nature of the particular news­
paper and consider whether or not it is of a responsible character.
In the present case the defendants justified the fact that there
was a police inquiry, but a reasonable man would not conclude
from that statement that everyone concerned was going to
Dartmoor Gaol. Cadam's case 44 was different from the present
case because there the defendants did not know what the plain­
tiffs said was the ordinary meaning of the words. There is and
always has been only one kind of innuendo, and an innuendo
is not created by pleading the ordinary and natural meaning of
the words as an innuendo: see, for example, Chapman's case 4S
and Gookson's case.46 Loughans's case 47 was not rightly decided.
Grubb's case 48 was rightly decided. Eeliance is placed on the
Capital and Counties Bank case.49 The Court of Appeal in the
present case were right in holding that Salmon J. should have
withdrawn the innuendo from the jury. The whole point of the
matter is that an innuendo is a second cause of action, and the
judge should tell the jury so. The concept of the " false
" i n n u e n d o " started because in Grubb's case 50 the so­called
innuendo in Loughans's case 5 1 was so described. Grubb's case 52
shows what a judge must consider in determining whether or
not words are capable of a defamatory meaning. As to the
English & Scottish Co­operative case 53 a " c h a r g e " is quite
different from an inquiry.
If there had been any question of going beyond the natural
and ordinary meaning of the words, evidence might, have been
called that there were special facts and circumstances which gave
rise to a reasonable suspicion of fraud.

39 [1932] 2 K.B. 478n., 482­483n., « [1932] 2 K.B. 278n.
487. " [1963] 1 Q.B. 299.
*» (1832) 1 Cr. & M. 11. « [1963] 1 Q.B. 309.
4
i (1839) 9 A. & E . 282. <>» 7 App.Cas. 741.
50
<2 (1807) 8 East 427. [1963] 1 Q.B. 309.
« (1846) 10 Q.B. 899. « [1963] 1 Q.B. 299.
<4 [1959] 1 Q . B . 413, 416­417, 419. 52 [ 1 9 6 3 ] x Q ­ B _ 3 0 g.
« [1932] 2 K.B. 431. «» [1940] 1 K.B. 440.

253
A.C. AND PRIVY COUNCIL.

As to the jury's duty in assessing damages, these are not in H. L. (E.)
the nature of a fine. For the principles of assessment: see 1953
Kelly v. Sherlock34 and Ley v. Hamilton." The whole matter "
must be looked at in the round. Damages do not depend on 0.
how badly the defendant has behaved but on the injury suffered DAILY
by the plaintiff, including his injured feelings. See Ley v. LTD.
Hamilton 56 in the Court of Appeal. See also Praed v. Graham S7;
Hodsoll v. Taylor™ and Loudon v. Ryder (No. 2). 59
The jury should have been told that they ought to make
some mitigation of the damages awarded in respect of the dam­
ages in the other action. To ignore them would be to depart
from reality. They should also have been told that, while they
could give damages for hurt feelings, those feelings were unlikely to
have been more hurt by two simultaneous publications than by
one. There must be a reasonable relation between the solatium
given and the wrong done. If the Court of Appeal cannot inter­
fere with the award in a case like this, they can never interfere.
No twelve reasonable men could have reached this figure. As to
evidence of general loss of business, see Ratcliffe v. Evans.60
As to the general principles relating to excessive damages, see
Mechanical & General Inventions Co. Ltd. v. Austin 61 and Davies
v. Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries Ltd.62 In Tolley's
case 63 £1,000 was held to be out of all proportion to the injury
suffered. As to the £3,500 damages awarded in Knuppfer v.
London Express Newspapers Ltd.6* see what was said by
Goddard L.J.
On the main issue there are only two points: (1) Are the
words in their natural and ordinary meaning capable of conveying
that the plaintiffs were guilty of fraud? No. (2) Should the two
causes of action have been left together for the jury? No.
Hugh Davidson following. In the matter of damages ques­
tions arise concerning the right approach to quantum in libel
actions, having regard to the tax element. The total amounts
awarded against the "Daily Telegraph" were £25,000 to John

s* (1865) L.E. 1 Q.B. 686, 697­ ' si [1935] A . C . 346, 374, H . L .
698. «2 [1942] A.C. 601; 58 T.L.E. 240;
" 153 L.T. 384, 386. [1942] 1 All B.E. 657, H . L .
so (1934) 151 L.T, 360, 375, C.A. ™ [193!] A . C . 333.
" 24 Q.B.D. 53, 55. 64 [1943] K . B . 80, 9 1 ; 59 T.L.B.
58 (1873) L.E. 9 Q.B. 79, 82. 31; [1942] 2 All E . E . 555, C.A.;
59 [1953] Ch. 423, 427; [1953] 2 [1944] A.C. 116; 60 T.L.E. 310;
W . L . E . 863; [1953] 1 All E.E. 1005. [1944] 1 All E.E. 495, H . L .
60 [1892] 2 Q.B. 524; 8 T.L.E.
597, C.A.
A.C. 1964. 17

254
' HOUSE OF LORDS [1964]

H. L. (E.) Lewis and £75,000 to the company. Deduction of tax has not
J963 been considered. British Transport Commission v. Gourley65
" applies directly to the company and also in its general approach
„ to Lewis if he seeks to prove loss of income resulting from the
DAILX publication. The only thing for which a company is compensated
LTD. in a libel action is loss of earnings, and a large proportion of those
earnings would have gone to the Eevenue. See also Gatley on
Libel, 5th ed., pp. 400­401. No distinction can be made between
general and special damages in the case of a company. See also
Polovstoff's case.66 The award of damages in the present case
cannot stand.
David Hirst following. The authorities before 1952 show that
the courts circumscribed the natural and ordinary meaning of
words. After the Common Law Procedure Act the inferential
meaning would be pleaded. It is the duty of the judge not only
to rule whether the words are capable of a defamatory meaning
in their natural and ordinary sense: if some particular shade of
natural meaning is put forward for the plaintiff, then, if the words
are incapable of bearing that meaning, it is the duty of the judge .
to direct the jury that they must disregard it. This applies
whether or not a true innuendo is pleaded. The test is always
the same, namely, whether the words are capable with reasonable
certainty of bearing the meaning contended for. Before 1852
the natural and ordinary meaning was treated as one cause of
action and included in one single count, so that, if the true
innuendo failed, as it often did, for technical reasons, the
court would discard the innuendo and would consider whether
the words in their natural and ordinary meaning were
capable of the meaning contended for: see Rex v. Home ";
Hawkes v. Hawkey68; Harvey v. French69 and Roberts v.
Camden.™ After 1852 the practice arose of ruling on the natural
and ordinary meaning of the words in question under the guise
of ruling on the innuendo: see Gompertz v. Levy.11
The Capital and Counties Bank case 72 shows that the court is
concerned with " the " defamatory meaning and not merely "a"
defamatory meaning. If among many innocent meanings there is
one possible defamatory meaning with nothing to point to it, the
65
[1956] A.C. 185, 199, 202­203, os g East 427, 431­432.
206­207, 211­212, 212­213, 215; «» 1 Cr. & M. 11, 17­18.
[1956] 2 W.L.E. 41; [1955] 3 All "> (1807) 9 East 93.
E.R. 796, H . L . « 9 A. & E . 282.
•• (1954) The Times, February 26 ™ 7 App.CaB. 741, 748, 781, 782,
(p. 5). 788, 793.
" (1777) 2 Cowp. 672, 683­684.

255
A.C. AND PRIVY COUNCIL.

judge should not leave the question to the jury at large. That H. L. (B.)
decision is not to be pushed aside or ignored, although it is a ^63
strong doctrine to which it has sometimes been found convenient ~
, LEWIS
to turn a blind eye. If the words cannot bear a suggested „.
defamatory meaning, it is wrong to leave it to the jury: see DAILY
Liberace v. Daily Mirror Newspapers Ltd.73 where the trial judge LTD.
rightly considered whether the words were capable of bearing
one of many suggested defamatory meanings.
The question here is whether the words complained of are
capable of meaning fraud and an analogy has been suggested
between " suspicion " cases and " rumour " cases. The appellants
in effect say that any statement containing a possible indication,
however remote, of fraud means an imputation of fraud and can
only be justified by proving fraud. There is no authority for
this in Watkin v. Hall7i and M'Pherson v. Daniels.75 Manson's
case 76 does not support it. The judgment of Mathew J. was
not followed in the Court of Appeal. All the nuances should not be
bundled together as meaning fraud. The injury is different in each
case. Each statement should be assessed at its face value, taking
its sting or stings into account and leaving it to the jury to decide
what the words in fact mean. " There is an inquiry whether X
" is fraudulent " does not convey the same thing as " X is
"fraudulent." Humour may create suspicion but rumour and
suspicion are not the same thing. A sub­inference of guilt from
an inferred suspicion is not to be made. See cwhat Holroyd
Pearce L.J. said in the Court of Appeal." It is not true to say
that the police generally deal with crimes. It is common know­
ledge that they often inquire into facts to find out whether or
not a crime has been committed, especially in company cases
where they have to dig deep into the books.
As to special damages, see Mayne and McGregor on Damages,
12th ed., pp. 975­980.
Helenus Milmo Q.O. in reply. There are only two issues here:
(1) Whether the words are capable in law of amounting to an
allegation of fraud and (2) whether the damages are excessive.
At the trial only two meanings were canvassed (a) fraud,
the meaning contended for by the plaintiffs, and (b) the literal
meaning pure and simple. If the words meant no more than the
latter, the only issue would be whether it was proved to the

« (1959) The Times, June 17 (p. « 10 B. & C. 263.
13), June 15 (p. 14). ™ [I894] 1 Q.B. 671.
'« L.E. 3 Q.B. 396. " [1963] 1 Q.B. 340, 370­371.

256
HOUSE OP LORDS [1964]

H. L. (E.) jury's satisfaction that there was in fact a police inquiry by
1963 the Fraud Squad. The jury did not find that that was the meaning;
~ the damages awarded negatived that, since they are only con­
B. sistant with the jury having found that the words amounted to
DAILY a n allegation of fraud. On the pleadings of the defendants, they
LTD. could not, on a new trial go beyond the primary fact of the
police inquiry. They have denied that the words in their natural
and ordinary meaning impute fraud and they have pleaded no
facts giving rise to a reasonable suspicion of fraud. In Manson's
case 78 not only was Manson suspected of murder but there were
strong grounds for suspecting him. On the footing that the words
conveyed a clear imputation of guilt, the judgment of Mathew J.
was approved in the Court of Appeal.
For there to be two causes of action the innuendo must be
something which cannot be part of the natural and ordinary
meaning; otherwise there is only one cause of action. There
is no need to plead anything, but a true innuendo. It is not
obligatory to plead the natural and ordinary meaning and the
plaintiffs are not confined to what was pleaded in paragraph 4,
because the jury are entitled to say what they consider is the
natural and ordinary meaning. A judge may rule that words are
incapable of a particular defamatory meaning, although it has
not been pleaded, but it should be left to the jury to say what
the words do mean. The law of libel has been growing for a long
time and it is now very different from what it was at the start
of the nineteenth century.
The question here is what meaning should reasonably be
ascribed to these words, what (if any) was the defamatory con­
tent of these words in the context in which they were published.
If they are defamatory it is because they amount to an allegation
of fraud. Whether that is what they mean to the persons to
whom they are published depends on all the circumstances of
publication, including the place.where they appear. It is false
to try to distinguish between rumour and suspicion. The
defamatory content of repeating suspicions is to make an allega­
tion of fraud. If a defendant could justify by proving reasonable
grounds of suspicion, no reputation would be safe. Suspicion
may be based on facts which are false or facts which give a
false impression because they are incomplete.
As to damages, although admittedly it is not right after Ley
v. Hamilton 79 to make a mathematical division between various

«■ [1894] 1 Q.B. 671, 694, 695. " 153 L.T. 384.

257
A.C. AND PRIVY COUNCIL.

elements to be taken into consideration in awarding damages, H. L. (E.)
there are two elements to be considered, compensation and ^953
punishment. The latter has nothing to do with compensation.
Ley v. Hamilton8° did not say that the punitive element does c>
not arise in cases of defamation. The objection was to the DAILY
" pleasantries " of Hamilton L.J. in the Qreenlands case. 81 A TjTD.
company cannot have feelings but it has a reputation, directors,
officers and employees and in that connection is in no different
position from an ordinary individual and can be awarded punitive
damages when an individual would be awarded them. If a com­
pany is accused of criminal fraud, it is inconceivable tbat that
would not predispose customers and potential customers against
it. The potential customers deterred from dealing with it cannot
be called as witnesses, because they are not known.

Their Lordships took time for consideration.

March 26, 1963. LORD EEID. My Lords, these are appeals
in two actions for libel brought by the appellants Mr. Lewis and
a company of which he is managing director against the proprie­
tors of the " Daily Telegraph " and the " Daily Mail " in respect
of paragraphs referring to them which appeared on the front
pages of those newspapers on December 23, 1958. I have had an
opportunity of reading the speeches about to be delivered by my
noble and learned friends who deal fully with the facts and I shall
not set out the passages of which complaint is made. On July
19, 1961, a jury awarded damages against the " Daily Telegraph "
of £25,000 to Mr. Lewis and £75,000 to his company. On July
21 a different jury awarded against the " Daily Mail " £17,000 to
Mr. Lewis and £100,000 to his company.
The Court of Appeal ordered new trials on several grounds of
which the two most important are that thetrial judge misdirected
the juries and that the damages are so excessive that the awards
cannot be allowed to stand. On the matter of misdirection there
is no material difference between the two cases.
The essence of the controversy between the parties is that the
appellants maintain that these passages are capable of meaning
that they were guilty of fraud. The respondents deny this: they
admit that the paragraphs are libellous but maintain that the
juries ought to have been directed that they are not capable of
the meaning which the appellants attribute to them. The learned
81
so 153 L.T. 384, 386. [1913] 3 K.B. 507.

258 HOUSE OP LORDS [1964]

H. L. (E.) judge directed the juries in such a way as to leave it open to them
ig63 to accept the appellants' contention, and it is obvious from the
amounts of damages awarded that the juries must have done
LEWIS ...
„. . this.
DAILY The gjst 0f the two paragraphs is that the police, the City
LTD. Fraud Squad, were inquiring into the appellants' affairs. There
LorTlteid ' s n 0 doubt ^ a ^ m actions for libel the question is what the words
would convey to the ordinary man: it is not one of construction
in the legal sense. The ordinary man does not live in an ivory
tower and he is not inhibited by a knowledge of the rules of con­
struction. So he can and does read between the lines in the light
of his general knowledge and experience of worldly affairs. I
leave aside questions of innuendo where the reader has some
special knowledge which might lead him to attribute a meaning
to the words not apparent to those who do not have that know­
ledge. That only arises indirectly in this case. There has been
much argument about innuendoes, true or false, and about proper
methods of pleading. My noble and learned friends intend to deal
with those matters and I shall not add to their explanations. I
shall only make some observations on the footing that in this case
there is no question of innuendo in the true sense.
What the ordinary man would infer without special knowledge
has generally been called the natural and ordinary meaning of the
words. But that expression is rather misleading in that it con­
ceals the fact that there are two elements in it. Sometimes it is
not necessary to go beyond the words themselves, as where the
plaintiff has been called a thief or a murderer. But more often
the sting is not so much in the words themselves as in what the
ordinary man will infer from them, and that is also regarded as
part of their natural and ordinary meaning. Here there would
be nothing libellous in saying that an inquiry into the appellants'
affairs was proceeding: the inquiry might be by a statistician or
other expert. The sting is in inferences drawn from the fact that
it is the fraud squad which is making the inquiry. What those
inferences should be is ultimately a question for the jury, but the
trial judge has an important duty to perform.
Generally the controversy is whether the words are capable
of having a libellous meaning at all, and undoubtedly it is the
judge's duty to rule on that. I shall have to deal later with the
test which he must apply. Here the controversy is in a different
form. The respondents admit that their words were libellous,
although I am still in some doubt as to what is the admitted
libellous meaning. But they sought and seek a ruling that these

A.C. AND PRIVY COUNCIL. 259

words are not capable of having the particular meaning which the H. L. (E.)
appellants attribute to them. I think that they are entitled to 1963
such a ruling and that the test must be the same as that applied
in deciding whether the words are capable of having any libellous „
meaning. I say that because it appears that when a particular DAILY
'"PPT FfHAPTT
meaning has been pleaded, either as a " true " or a " false " f^^
innuendo, it has not been doubted that the iudge must rule on
' ° Lord Eeid.
the innuendo. And the case surely cannot be different where a
part of the natural and ordinary meaning is, and where it is not,
expressly pleaded.
The leading case is Capital and Counties Bank Ltd. v.
Henty & Sons.1 In that case Lord Selborne L.C. said: " The
" test, according to the authorities, is, whether under the circum­
" stances in which the writing was published, reasonable men, to
" whom the publication was made, would be likely to understand
" i t in a libellous sense." Each of the four noble Lords who
formed the majority stated the test in a different way, and the
speeches of Lord Blackburn and Lord Watson could be read as
imposing a heavier burden on the plaintiff. But I do not think
that they should now be so read. In Nevill v. Fine Art & General
Insurance Co. Ltd.2 Lord Halsbury said: " . . . what is the sense
" in which any ordinary reasonable man would understand the
" words of the communication so as to expose the plaintiff to
" hatred, or contempt or ridicule . . . it is not enough to say that
" by some person or another the words might be understood in a
" defamatory sense." These statements of the law appear to
have been generally accepted and I would not attempt to restate
the general principle.
In this case it is, I think, sufficient to put the test in this way.
Ordinary men and women have different temperaments and out­
looks. Some are unusually suspicious and some are unusually
naive. One must try to envisage people between these two ex­
tremes and see what is the most damaging meaning they would
put on the words in question. So let me suppose a number of
ordinary people discussing one of these paragraphs which they
had read in the newspaper. No doubt one of them might say—
" Oh, if the fraud squad are after these people you can take it
" they are guilty." But I would expect the others to turn on
him, if he did say that, with such remarks as—" Be fair. This
" is not a police state. No doubt their affairs are in a mess or
" the police would not be interested. But that could be because
i (1882) 7 App.Cas. 741, 745, H.L. * [1897] A.C. 68, 72, 73; 13
T.L.E. 97, H.L.

260
HOUSE OP LORDS [1964]

H. L. (E.) " Lewis or t h e cashier has been very stupid or careless. W e
1963 " re& My must not j u m p to conclusions. T h e police are fair and
'' know their job and we shall know soon enough if there is any­
„ " thing in it. Wait till we see if they charge h i m . I wouldn't
DAILY " trust h i m until this is cleared up, b u t it is another thing to
TBLBGBAPH ., i , . , ­, ,,
L TO . condemn h i m unheard.
» "rr",. W h a t t h e ordinary m a n , not avid for scandal, would read into
Lord Beid. J >
the words complained of must be a matter of impression. I can
only say that I do not think that he would infer guilt of fraud
merely because an inquiry is on foot. And, if that is so, then it
is the duty of the trial judge to direct the jury that it is for them
to determine the meaning of the paragraph but that they must not
hold it to impute guilt of fraud because as a matter of law the
paragraph is not capable of having that meaning. So there was
here, in my opinion, misdirection of the two juries sufficiently
serious to require that there must be new trials.
Before leaving this part of the case I must notice an argu­
ment to the effect that you can only justify a libel that the plain­
tiffs have so conducted their affairs as to give rise to suspicion of
fraud, or as to give rise to an inquiry whether there has been
fraud, by proving that they have acted fraudulently. Then it is
said that if that is so there can be no difference between an allega­
tion of suspicious conduct and an allegation of guilt. To my
mind, there is a great difference between saying that a man has
behaved in a suspicious manner and saying that he is guilty of an
offence, and I am not convinced that you can only justify the
former statement by proving guilt. I can well understand that
if you say there is a rumour that X is guilty you can only justify
it by proving that he is guilty, because repeating someone else's
libellous statement is just as bad as making the statement directly.
But I do not think that it is necessary to reach a decision on this
matter of justification in order to decide that these paragraphs
can mean suspicion but cannot be held to infer guilt.
Even if the paragraphs were capable of meaning that the
appellants were guilty of fraud I would think that the damages
awarded were far too high, and a fortiori the awards could not
stand if the most that could be read into the words is that they
had conducted their affairs in such a way as to give rise to sus­
picion or to justify a police inquiry. I do not say that these
amounts of damages could never be justified, but at least there
would have to be evidence of a very different kind from that
adduced in these cases. I do not intend to analyse the evidence
already given because that might hamper the conduct of the new

A.C. AND PRIVY COUNCIL. 261

trials with regard to both the plaintiffs' case and the defendants' H. L. (E.)
pleas of justification. But two particular matters raised in argu­ ^ggg
ment will probably arise at the new trials and they require some
, .j, ,. LEWIS
clarification. „
Here there were similar libels published in two national news­ DAILY
papers, on the same day and each has to be dealt with by a ^m
different jury. If each jury were to award damages without re­ ——.
gard to the fact that the plaintiffs are also entitled to damages
against the other newspaper, the aggregate of the damages in the
two actions would almost certainly be too large. Section 12 of
the Defamation Act, 1952, is intended to deal with that. In effect
it requires that each jury shall be told about the other action, but
the question is what each jury should be told. I do not think it is
sufficient merely to tell each jury to make such allowance as they
may think fit. They ought, in my view, to be directed that in
considering the evidence submitted to them they should consider
how far the damage suffered by the plaintiffs can reasonably be
attributed solely to the libel with which they are concerned and
how far it ought to be regarded as the joint result of the two
libels. If they think that some part of the damage is the joint
result of the two libels they should bear in mind that the plain­
tiffs ought not to be compensated twice for the same loss. They
can only deal with this matter on very broad lines and they must
take it that the other jury will be given a similar direction. They
must do the best they can to ensure that the sum which they
award will fully compensate the plaintiffs for the damage caused
by the libel with which they are concerned, but will not take into
account that part of the total damage suffered by the plaintiffs
which ought to enter into the other jury's assessment.
The other question arises out of the decision of this House in
British Transport Commission v. Gourley3 which deals with
damages for loss of income caused by a tort. In that case Mr.
Gourley had been seriously injured in a railway accident. He had
been earning a large income and it was found that his loss of
income due to his injuries was £37,720. But this was the gross
income which he would have received but for his injuries. Out
of it he would have had to pay income tax and surtax. And it ­
was found that after paying tax he would only have retained
£6,695. So his real loss was only £6,695 because he could never
have derived any advantage from the balance which he would
have had to pay away in tax. As damages are not subject to
tax, he would have recovered far more than his real loss, if he
3 [1956] A.C. 185; [1956] 2 W . L . E . 41; [1955] 3 All E.B. 796, H . L .

262
HOUSE OP LORDS [1964]

H. L. (E.) had recovered the gross amount of £37,720, and accordingly it
1963 was ne
^ * na * n e w a s o m y entitled to receive £6,695 in respect
of his loss of income as this was sufficient to compensate him
„ fully for the income which he had lost by the fault of the
DAILY defendants.
TELEGRAPH
LTD. There can be no difference in principle between loss of income
cause
LorTiteid. <l by negligence and loss of income caused by a libel. Let
me take first the case of the plaintiff company. A company can­
not be injured in its feelings, it can only be injured in its pocket.
Its reputation can be injured by a libel but that injury must
sound in money. The injury need not necessarily be confined to
loss of income. Its goodwill may be injured. But in so far as
the company establishes that the libel has, or has probably,
diminished its profits, I think that Oourley's case 3 is relevant.
But damages for libel have to be assessed by a jury, and juries
are not expected to make mathematical calculations, so they can
only deal with this matter on broad lines. I think that a jury
ought to be directed to the effect that if they think that the plain­
tiff company has proved that it has suffered or will suffer loss of
profit as a result of the libel they must bear in mind that the
company would have had to pay income tax at the standard rate
out of that profit if it had been earned and would only have been
entitled to keep the balance. So in assessing damages they ought
not to take into account the whole of that profit, but should make
allowance for the obligation to pay income tax out of it.
The position with regard to an individual plaintiff is rather
different. He may be entitled to very substantial damages al­
though his income has not been affected by the libel. But if he
does attempt to prove loss of income as a result of the libel, then
I think that a similar direction must be given to the jury, and it
may be necessary to mention surtax as well as income tax.
Accordingly, I shall move in each case that the appeal should
be dismissed, that a new trial be ordered, that costs of the abor­
tive trial should abide the result of the new trial, and that the
appellants be ordered to pay the respondents' costs in the Court
of Appeal and in this House.
My noble and learned friend, Lord Jenkins, is unable to be
present this morning, and he desires me to say that he concurs.

LORD MORRIS OF BOETH­Y­GEST stated the facts, summarised
the pleadings, read what Salmon J. said on the submission that
the innuendoes should be withdrawn from the jury and said that
paragraph 4 of the statement of claim must be regarded as

A.C. AND PRIVY COUNCIL. 263

pleading an innuendo in the strict sense and that before the H. L. (B.)
House of Lords it was common ground that the fact that certain lg g3
meanings were alleged by way of innuendo did not debar the
plaintiffs from contending that those words were in fact the direct „
or ordinary or primary meaning of the words. He continued: DAILY
It is clearly settled that an innuendo constitutes a cause of LTD.
action separate from the libel itself, and in respect of which a . .—­. m
r r
Lord Morris of
separate verdict should be returned and separate damages (if to be Borth­y­oest.
awarded) should be assessed. (See Sim v. Stretch 4 and Watkin
V. Hall.5) Unless the court otherwise permits, any payment
into court referable to an innuendo must be a separate payment.
The words of the judge show that he fully appreciated the
difficulty that faced the pleader and that he considered that the
pleading of innuendoes had really been unnecessary. That was
because the innuendoes did not go beyond the meanings that the
plaintiffs said were conveyed by the words of the libel. The
effect of what the judge did was that the case proceeded on the
footing that the paragraphs should be treated as being no more
than paragraphs which recorded what the plaintiffs submitted
were the ordinary meanings of the words. The paragraphs were,
however, in form and must be regarded as being in fact, para­
graphs which pleaded innuendoes. That being so, if tbe judge
took the view that no extrinsic facts were proved which could
support an innuendo he should, I think, have said in direct terms
that he was not leaving any innuendo in its true sense to the jury,
and instead of refusing the application should have, at least to
some extent, acceded to it. If he was prepared to allow the
paragraphs to remain in some form he should perhaps have
required that they be amended so that they were no longer para­
graphs which pleaded innuendoes. But tbe case went on just
as though he had done that. The paragraphs were treated as
though they did not contain innuendoes in a true sense. They
were regarded as being of the style of paragraphs which in plead­
ings before the introduction of Ord. 19, r. 6 (2), used the word
'' innuendo " in a more general way and not in its strict or
technical sense. So no harm to the respondents resulted from
the ruling of the judge. The case continued in spite of the actual
language of his ruling, just as the respondents suggested that it
should proceed. No innuendo (using that word in its strict sense)
was in fact left to the jury. The summing­up directed the jury

* (1936) 52 T.L.E. 669, 671; « (1868) L.E. 3 Q.B. 396.
[1936] 2 All B.E. 1237, H.L.

264
HOUSE OP LORDS [19.64]

H. L. (E.) to consider what the words themselves meant and conveyed.
1963 Had the judge left an innuendo to the jury he would have had to
" require the jury to deal with it as a separate issue. His words
„. show that he regarded the paragraphs as harmless paragraphs
DAILY which had not hurt the defendants but had perhaps helped them
TELEGRAPH
LTD. by forewarning them as to what the plaintiff said that the words
Lordlaorris of r n e a n ^ ­ He did, however, consider that the words complained
Borth­y­Gest. 0f w e r e of and by themselves capable of bearing the meanings
alleged by the plaintiffs, and he left it to the jury to say what
they thought that the words meant. Here I think (apart from the
issues concerning the damages) is the real issue in the case.
Was the judge right in deciding (as he implicitly did) that the
words were capable of bearing all the alleged meanings? Once
the judge had reached that conclusion, then any question as to
innuendoes seems to me to have dropped out of the case.
Where a plaintiff brings an action for libel he may sustain his
case (where there is a trial with a jury) if the judge rules that
the words, in what has been called their natural and ordinary
meaning (or their " o r d i n a r y " meaning—see Ord. 19, r. 6 (2))
are capable of being defamatory, and if the jury find that they are
defamatory. A plaintiff may, however, sustain his case in a
different way. He may plead an innuendo. He may establish
that because there were extrinsic facts which were known to
readers of the words, such readers would be reasonably induced
to understand the words in a defamatory sense which went
beyond or which altered their natural and ordinary meaning,
and which could be regarded as a secondary or as an extended
meaning. The nature of an innuendo (using that word in its
correct legal sense) has recently been reviewed in the valuable
judgments delivered in the Court of Appeal in Grubb v. Bristol
United Press Ltd.6 A defamatory meaning which derives no
support from extrinsic facts but which is said to be implied from
the words which are used is not a true innuendo. If there are
some special extrinsic facts the result may be that to those who
know them words may convey a meaning which the words taken
by themselves do not convey.
In the present case I am disposed to agree with the Court of
Appeal that no extrinsic facts were proved which yielded the
necessary support to sustain an innuendo. This, however, became
a matter of no consequence in the case, for if the meanings
alleged in the pleaded innuendo were no more than the meanings
e [1963] 1 Q.B. 309; [1962] 3 W.L.R. 25; [1962] 2 All B.B. 380, C.A.

265
A.C. AND PRIVY COUNCIL.

expressed or conveyed by, or to be implied from, the words them­ H. L. (E.)
selves, then there was no need to plead innuendoes. It was not ^gg3
really being alleged that the words were used in a defamatory — ­
sense other than their ordinary meaning. „.
Though the two paragraphs 4 were undoubtedly pleaded as T J P J ^ * „
innuendoes, once it was clear that the contention of the plaintiffs LTD.
was that the words themselves would be understood by ordinary lord."j^7rIa ot
readers to be conveying and expressing the meanings recorded in Borth­y­Oest.
those paragraphs, then the case for the plaintiffs was direct and
straightforward and was not in any way advanced or assisted by
any mention of an innuendo. Though the paragraphs were not
struck out, the only significance of their remaining was that they
usefully contained and recorded the ordinary meanings which the
plaintiffs said were conveyed by the words printed in the news­
paper. It followed that it was quite unnecessary for the judge to
tell the jury what an innuendo was, or even to use the word (and
he did not) or to leave any issue or question to them concerning
an innuendo. The question left to the jury—within the limits of
the meanings which the judge regarded the words as being
capable of bearing—was as to what they thought ordinary people
would consider that the words meant.
In a case where there is no innuendo pleaded, it is not essential
for a plaintiff to record and define in his pleadings what he says
are the ordinary or direct or natural or implied meanings of the
words. If, however, he does do so (as may often be helpful
provided it is made clear what is being done), and if the judge
considers that the words are not capable of bearing any one or
more of such meanings, he ought so to rule. If the plaintiff does
not do so, the various meanings suggested by the plaintiff will
almost invariably be canvassed during the trial, and if the judge
considers that the words are not capable of bearing any one or
more of them, again he ought so to rule.
It is of some importance to consider how the issues in the
case rested. Publication of the words complained of was admit­
ted. The separate plaintiffs (the company and Mr. Lewis)
claimed and the defendants denied that in their natural and
ordinary meaning the words meant what was set out in the two
paragraphs. It was not denied by the defendants and it was
therefore tacitly admitted that the words in their natural and
ordinary meaning were defamatory of the plaintiffs, but the
defendants' contention was that in their natural and ordinary
meanings the words only meant that there was an inquiry by the

266
HOUSE OP LORDS [1964]

H. L. (B.) City of London Fraud Squad. The defendants' plea of justifiea­
196 3 tion was accordingly and for that reason limited to that meaning
which was the only defamatory meaning that they said that the
„ words bore. They said that there had been an inquiry. The
DAILY plaintiffs said that there had not been anything that could be
rpRI PflTt APTT

LTD_ called an inquiry or that the defendants had not proved that there
. had been such an inquiry. The defendants pleaded in mitigation
Borth­y­Gest. of damages that on December 24, 1958, they published a state­
ment by Mr. Lewis expressing his view of the facts, and they also
pleaded that the plaintiffs had claimed damages for the same or
a similar libel from Associated Newspapers Ltd.
If the learned judge was correct in holding that the words were
capable of bearing the meanings that the affairs of the company
or its subsidiaries were conducted fraudulently or dishonestly or
that the personal plaintiff had been guilty of fraud or dishonesty
in connection with the affairs of the company or its subsidiaries,
then I see no grounds for criticism of his summing­up on the
issues of liability. He invited the jury to decide what they
thought ordinary reasonable people would consider the words to
mean. Having regard to the guidance given by Lord Selbome
L.C. in his speech in Capital and Counties Bank Ltd. v.
Henty & Sons 7 that was, I think, an entirely correct approach.
Lord Selborne said: " T h e test, according to the authorities, is,
" whether under the circumstances in which the writing was
" published, reasonable men, to whom the publication was made,
" would be likely to understand it in a libellous sense." See
also the words of Lord Blackburn. 8
My Lords, words are but instruments which men use to ex­
press and convey their meanings. The learned judge asked the
jury to say what meanings the words in question would convey,
not to people with some special or particular knowledge, but just
to ordinary men and women going about their ordinary affairs.
It is in this sense that in defamation cases the phrase " natural
" and ordinary meaning " (which may include an implied or in­
direct meaning) is used. Not resting upon any technical process
of analysis or construction, nor upon a process of critical reading,
the inquiry is as to what meanings are conveyed to hearers or
readers by the medium of words. This is a matter for the jury,
though a jury must not be asked to consider a meaning which the
words in question are not reasonably capable of bearing.
It was said in the Court of Appeal that the learned judge had
8
' 7 App.Cas. 741, 745. Ibid. 772.

A.O. AND PRIVY COUNCIL. 267

failed to remember that the defendants were admitting that the H. L. (E.)
words, in what they said was their only natural meaning, were ­^3
defamatory. I do not think that there is any substance in this,
for the learned judge asked the jury whether, if the words bore c
the very limited meaning contended for by the newspaper, they DAILY
TFTFORAPH
considered that the words were justifiable as being true: the jJI0
necessity to consider the defence of justification would only arise
on the basis that the words were defamatory, and there is no Borth­y­Gest.
reason to think that the judge was either under a misapprehension
or that he need have said more to the jury than he did. He put
very fairly before the jury the rival contentions as to what the
words meant. We do not know exactly what the jury decided
that the words meant because with the assent of both sides only
the one question set out above was left to them. As it is impor­
tant to see how the matter was put to the jury, I venture to quote
the words of the learned judge: [His Lordship read the summing­
up and continued: ]
My Lords, I turn to consider the question whether the words
were capable of bearing the meaning that the affairs of the com­
pany and/or its subsidiaries were conducted fraudulently or dis­
honestly. I do not understand any of your Lordships to be of the
view that the words were not capable of bearing the meaning that
the police suspected that the affairs of the company or its subsi­
diaries were conducted fraudulently or dishonestly: nor did I
understand any submission to be made that the words were not so
capable.
It is a grave thing to say that someone is fraudulent. It is a
different thing to say that someone is suspected of being fraudu­
lent. How much less wounding and damaging this would be must
be a matter of opinion depending upon the circumstances. Simi­
larly in the case of the personal plaintiff the submission is made
that the words, while capable of bearing some of the alleged
meanings, were not capable of bearing the meanings that Mr.
Lewis had been guilty of fraud or dishonesty in connection with
the affairs of the company or its subsidiaries or had caused or per­
mitted the affairs to be conducted fraudulently or dishonestly.
My Lords, the only question that now arises is not whether
the words did bear but whether they were capable of bearing the
meanings to which I have referred. What could ordinary reason­
able readers think? Some, I consider, might reasonably take the
view that there was just an inquiry to find out whether or not
there had been any fraud or dishonesty. Some, I consider, might
reasonably take the view that the words meant that there was an

268
HOUSE OP LORDS [1964]

H. L. (E.) inquiry because the police suspected that there had been fraud
1963 or dishonesty. Some, I consider, might reasonably take the view
■ that the words meant that there was an inquiry because there
LEWIS
„ had been fraud or dishonesty which occasioned or required inquiry
DAILY by the police. Some, I consider, might reasonably take the view
LTD_ that the words meant that the inquiry was either (a) because
there had been fraud or dishonesty or (b) because of a suspicion
x
Lord Morris of '
Borth­y­Geat. that there had been.
My Lords, it is not for me to say what I think was the mean­
ing which the words conveyed to the ordinary reasonable reader
of a newspaper, nor is it for me to express any opinion as to what
conclusion a jury should reach as to this matter, but I do not
consider that that meaning which involved that there had been
fraud or dishonesty was a meaning which the jury should have
been prohibited from considering on the basis that it was a mean­
ing of which the words were not capable. I do not think that it
can be said that twelve jurors could not reasonably have come
to the conclusion that the words bore the meaning now being
considered. In using this language I am following the approach
suggested by Lord Porter in his speech in Turner v. Metro­
Goldwyn­Mayer Pictures Ltd.9 See also Nevill v. Fine Art &
General Insurance Co. Ltd.10
My Lords, a reasonable reader will probably be a fair­minded
reader. The fair­minded reader would assume that a responsible
newspaper would also be fair. If there was some private police
inquiry in progress, the purpose of which was to ascertain whether
or not there had been fraud or dishonesty, what possible justifica­
tion could there be for proclaiming this far and wide to all the
readers of a newspaper? If confidential information was received
to the effect that there was a police inquiry, on what basis could
the publishing of such information be warranted? There is no
suggestion that the police had asked that any notice should be
published. Under certain circumstances a newspaper may enjoy
qualified privilege if it publishes a notice issued for the informa­
tion of the public by or on behalf of a chief officer of police. (See
section 7 of the Defamation Act, 1952.) If there was a police
inquiry by a " Fraud Squad '' which might result in the conclusion
that any suspicion of fraud or dishonesty was wholly unwarranted,
how manifestly unfair it would be to make public mention of the
inquiry. What purpose could there be in doing so? With these
'» (1950) 66 T.L.B. (Pt. 1) 342; " [1897] A.C. 68, 76.
[1950] 1 All B.E. 449, H.L.

269
A.C. AND PRIVY COUNCIL.

thoughts and questions in his mind, a reasonable reader might H. L. (B.)
well consider that no responsible newspaper would dare to publish, 1963
or would be so cruel as to publish, the words in question unless I ~~
the confidential information, which in some manner they had v.
obtained, was not information merely to the effect that there was TELEGRAPH
LTD
some kind of inquiry in progress but was information to the effect ­
that there . was fraud or dishonesty. Some reasonable readers Lord Morris of
J
Borth­y­Geat.
might therefore think that the words conveyed the meaning that
there must have been fraud or dishonesty.
Furthermore, a reasonable reader might reflect that while the
police may be concerned with inquiries as to whether some crime
has or has not been committed, they are probably more often
only concerned after a crime has been committed. They have to
inquire whether they possess the necessary evidence for the
launching of a prosecution. Eeasonable readers might also think
that inquiries into the affairs of a company if such inquiries were
not concerned with fraud or dishonesty would not be conducted
by the police at all. They would be conducted by persons or
departments having no connection with the City of London Police •
Fraud Squad. Some of such readers might therefore be led to
believe that if there was an inquiry by the City of London Fraud
Squad, which a newspaper felt justified in mentioning, it must
have been an inquiry to collect and marshal evidence in order to
launch a prosecution for some offences involving fraud or dis­
honesty which had been committed.
My Lords, it was for the jury to determine what they con­
sidered was the meaning that the words would convey to ordinary
men and women: we have only to decide as to the limits of the
range of meanings of which the words were capable. For the
reasons that I have given I have the misfortune to differ from your
Lordships as to this very important part of the case. I consider
that the learned judge was fully entitled to leave the matter to
the jury in the way in which he did, and I consider that his direc­
tions concerning liability were clear and correct and fair.
My Lords, in the consolidated action against the " Daily
" M a i l " a similar issue arises to that which I have been
discussing.
On the difficult issue as to damages I do not differ from your
Lordships or from the Court of Appeal that the awards of damages
were excessive and cannot stand. This issue was fully debated
and the relevant evidence was carefully examined. As there must
be new trials, I do not think that there is need to say more in
A.C. 1964. 18

270
HOUSE OF LORDS [1964]

H. L. (E.) regard to this matter. I would wish to add that having had the
1963 privilege of reading in advance the speech which has been
L delivered by my noble and learned friend, Lord Eeid, I am in
v. agreement with his observations in regard to section 12 of the
TELEGRAPH Defamation Act, 1952, and in regard to the extent of any rele­
LTD
­ vance of the case of British Transport Commission v. Gourley.11
Lord Morris of, Because I do not dissent on the issue as to damages I agree
Borth­y­Gest.
that there must be new trials and that therefore the appeals should
be dismissed.
LORD HODSON. My Lords, in these actions large damages were
awarded to the plaintiff, Mr. Lewis, and to the company, Eubber
Improvement Ltd., of which the first plaintiff is the managing
director. In the first pair of actions, which were consolidated
with one another, the " Daily Telegraph " was the defendant,
in the second pair, likewise consolidated, Associated Newspapers
Ltd., proprietors of the " Daily Mail," were defendants.
The pairs of actions were tried separately, no step being taken
to have them consolidated, although the language of the libels is
similar and each defendant is a newspaper having a wide national
circulation. [His Lordship read the words complained of, stated
the result of the actions and continued: ]
The Court of Appeal ordered a new trial, holding that in any
event the damages were so excessive that no reasonable jury
could have awarded so large a figure, and that there was a mis­
direction on the part of the trial judge in respect of the meaning
of the libels.
The defendants did not deny that the words complained of
were defamatory of the plaintiffs. They justified the words as
true in their natural and ordinary meaning, and denied that they
bore any of the meanings which they were said to bear by
innuendo, in effect that the plaintiffs were guilty or suspected by
the police of fraud or dishonesty in connection with the affairs
of the company or its subsidiaries.
The appellants recognise that in awarding such large damages
on each trial the juries must have taken the view that the words
of which they complain meant that they had been actually guilty
of fraud, a meaning which the defendants have throughout
disclaimed. •
" [1956] A.C. 185.

271
A.C. AND PRIVY COUNCIL.

No one doubts t h a t it is for the jury to decide the meaning of H
­ L ­ (E­)
words not as a question of pure construction but as a question of 1933
fact, as Lord Tenterden C.J. put it in Harvey v. French,12 to be
read " in the sense in which ordinary persons, or in which we „,
" ourselves out of court . . . would understand t h e m . " Whether DAILY
TraT EORAPH
the words are capable of defamatory meaning is for the judge, LTD.
and where the words, whether on the face of them they are or are T ~~.
J
' Lord Hodson..
not innocent in themselves, bear a defamatory or more defama­
tory meaning because of extraneous facts known to those to
whom the libel has been published, it is the duty of the judge to
rule whether there is evidence of such extraneous facts fit to be
left to the jury.
It is in conjunction with secondary meanings that much of the
difficulty surrounding the law of libel exists. These secondary
meanings are covered by the word "innuendo," which signifies
pointing out what and who is meant by the words complained of.
Who is meant raises no problem here, but what is meant is of
necessity divided into two parts much discussed in this case.
Libels are of infinite variety, and the literal meaning of the words,
even of such simple phrases as " X is a thief ", does not carry one
very far, for they may have been spoken in play or other circum­
stances showing that they could not be taken by reasonable per­
sons as imputing an accusation of theft. Conversely, to say that
a man is a good advertiser only becomes capable of a defamatory
meaning if coupled with proof, for example, that he was a pro­
fessional man whose reputation would suffer if such were believed
of him.
The first subdivision of the innuendo has lately been called
the false innuendo as it is no more than an elaboration or
embroidering of the words used without proof of extraneous facts.
The true innuendo is that which depends on extraneous facts
which the plaintiff has to prove in order to give the words the
secondary meaning of which he complains.
The classic example is to be found in Barham v. Nethersal,13
referred to by De Grey C.J. in Rex v. Home " in the following
passage relating to a charge of criminal libel: " B u t as an
" innuendo is only used as a word of explanation, it cannot extend
" the sense of the expressions in the libel beyond their own
" meaning; unless something is put upon the record for it to
12 (1832) 1 Cr. & M. 11. " (1777) 2 Cowp. 672, 684.
« (1602) 4 Co.Jtep. 20.

272
HOUSE OF LORDS [1964]

H. L. (E.) " explain. As in actions upon the case against a man for saying
1963 "of another, ' H e has burnt my barn' (Barham's case 15 ), the
LEWIS " P ^ 1 1 ^ cannot there, by way of innuendo, say, meaning ' his
v. " ' barn full of corn '; because that is not an explanation of what
TELEGRAPH " Wft s said before, but an addition to it. But if in the introduction
LTD
­ " it had been averred, that the defendant had a barn full of corn,
Lord Hodson. " and that in a discourse about that barn, the defendant had
" spoken the words charged in the libel of the plaintiff; an
" innuendo of its being the barn full of corn would have been
good: for by coupling the innuendo in the libel with the intro­
" ductory averment, ' his barn full of corn,' it would have made
" it complete."
The innuendo in this case was set out in the statement of
claim as a separate paragraph and was or purported to be a true
innuendo, for the plaintiff gave particulars pursuant to K.S.C.,
Ord. 19, r. 6 (2), of the facts and matters which he relied upon
in support of a sense other than the ordinary meaning. It is plain
on the authorities that since the Common Law Procedure Act,
1852, which did away with the necessity for a prefatory averment
showing the sense in which words were used and enacted by
section 61 that " where the words or matter set forth, with or
" without the alleged meaning, show a cause of action, the dec­
" laration shall be sufficient," the true innuendo has been treated
as a separate cause of action from that which arose from the
words in their natural and ordinary meaning (with or without
inferential meanings commonly called false innuendoes). See per
Blackburn J. in Watkin v. Hall16 and per Lord Atkinson in Sim
v. Stretch.17
After the passing of the Common Law Procedure Act until
the year 1949 when Ord. 19, r. 6 (2), came into force there was
in many cases no distinction to be found between the true and
the false innuendo. No special facts had to be pleaded to support
the innuendo and the distinction became blurred between the true
innuendo and that which was very often nothing but a wordy
explanation or attempted explanation of the words complained of
in their natural and ordinary meaning.
This blurring is manifest in the pleadings of the plaintiff here,
for it contains the plaintiff's contention as to the natural and
ordinary meaning of the words complained of, that is to say that

" 4 Co.Eep. 20. " 52 T.L.K. 669, 671.
" L.E. 3 Q.B. 396, 462.

273
A.C. AND. PRIVY COUNCIL.

they mean that he and his company were fraudulent or suspected H. L. (E.)
of fraud, and it is at the same time supported by particulars given 1963
under Ord. 19, r. 6 (2), as of a true innuendo. As the Court of L
Appeal found, and I have no doubt they were right, the particu­ v.
lars did not show, nor was any evidence given of, extraneous facts TELEGRAPH
LTD
in support of the innuendo and accordingly "the innuendo should ­
not have been left to the jury. Although the innuendo was not Lord Hodson.
pleaded in the alternative, yet, as the Court of Appeal held, in my
opinion quite rightly, this did not prevent the plaintiffs seeking
to show, if they could, that the natural and ordinary meaning of
the words complained of was to the same effect. To hold other­
wise and not to permit the jury to impute to the ordinary meaning
of the words any part of the failed innuendo would, as Holroyd
Pearce L.J. pointed out, have the effect of removing the jury's
decision on whether the words are in their ordinary sense a libel
into an unreal technical and artificial sphere.
I agree with the observations of Upjohn L.J. in Grubb v.
Bristol United Press Ltd." to the effect that Ord. 19, r. 6 (2),
makes no alteration in the law except in cases where a true
innuendo is pleaded. A pleader is entitled to allege in his state­
ment of claim what the words in their natural and ordinary mean­
ing convey, provided he makes it clear that he is not relying upon
a true innuendo which gives a separate cause of action and re­
quires a separate verdict from the jury. It is desirable that he
should do so, for where there is no true innuendo the judge should
define the limits of the natural and ordinary meaning of the libel
and leave to the jury only those meanings which he rules are
capable of being defamatory. If the natural and ordinary mean­
ing is pleaded the defence will know what the contentions of the
plaintiff are and the judge will not have to analyse the submis­
sions of counsel in his charge to the jury without having the bene­
fit of a pleading setting out what those submissions are.
There is no conflict, in my opinion, between the decisions of
the Court of Appeal in Grubb's case 19 and in Loughans v. Odhams
Press Ltd.20 when properly understood, as indeed was pointed
out by Upjohn L.J. in the former case. The difficulty arises
from some words (perhaps unguarded) used by Diplock L.J. in

is [1963] 1 Q.B. 309, 333. 2° [1963] 1 Q.B. 299; [1962] 2
™ [1963] 1 Q.B. 309. W.L.E. 692; [1962] 1 All E.E. 404,
C.A.

274 HOUSE OP LORDS [1964]

H. L. (E.) Loughans' case 21 and cited by Davies L.J. in Grubb's case 22 to
1963 the effect that the plaintiff may require a verdict from a jury as
' to whether the words bear a special defamatory meaning even
v. though he had led no evidence of facts and matters on which he
TELEGRAPH relies other than the words themselves as giving rise to the
LTD. meaning alleged in the innuendo. This, I agree with Davies
Lord Hodson. L.J., he cannot do. There is one cause of action based on the
words in their natural and ordinary meaning and another based
on the words in such meaning as may be alleged in a true
innuendo, but not a third cause of action based on the false
innuendo.
The defendants having admitted that the words are defamatory
in their ordinary meaning have always maintained that their
ordinary meaning does not go so far as to include actual guilt of
fraud. They have sought to justify by proving that an inquiry
was in fact held, not by proving actual suspicion of fraud.
This is the gist of the whole case. Salmon J., who tried both
pairs of actions, took the view that the words were capable of
imputing guilt of fraud. Davies L.J. was inclined to the same
opinion, and my noble and learned friend, Lord Morris of Borth­
y­Gest, has expressed the same opinion as Salmon J. Holroyd
Pearce L.J. and Havers J. took the contrary view. In view of
this difference of judicial opinion, one naturally hesitates before
expressing a concluded opinion of one's own, but after listening
to many days of argument I am myself satisfied that the words
cannot reasonably be understood to impute guilt. Suspicion, no
doubt, can be inferred from the fact of the inquiry being held if
such was the case, but to take the further step and infer guilt is,
in my view, wholly unreasonable. This is to draw an inference
from an inference and to take two substantial steps at the same
time.
The distinction between suspicion and guilt is illustrated by
the case of Simmons v. Mitchell2S which decided that spoken
words which convey a mere suspicion that the plaintiff has com­
mitted a crime punishable by imprisonment will not support an
action without proof of special damage.
It has been argued before your Lordships that suspicion can­
not be justified without proof of actual guilt on the analogy of
the rumour cases such as Watkin v. Hall.2* Eumour and sus­
picion do, however, essentially differ from one another. To say

" [1963] 1 Q.B. 299, 303. " (1880) 6 App.Cas. 156, P.C.
22 [1963] 1 Q.B. 309, 337­338. " L.B. 3 Q.B. 396.

275
A.C. AND PRIVY COUNCIL.

something is rumoured to be the fact is, if the words are defa­ H. L. (E.)
matory, a republication of the libel. One cannot defend an action X963
for libel by saying that one has been told the libel by someone T, BWIS
else, for this might be only to make the libel worse. The principle o.
as stated by Blackburn J. in Watkin v. H a l l " is that a party is TELEGRAPH
IjTD
not the less entitled to recover damages from a court of law for '
injurious matter published concerning him because another person Lord Hodson.
previously published it. It is wholly different with suspicion. It
may be defamatory to say that someone is suspected of an offence,
but it does not carry with it that that person has committed the
offence, for this must surely offend against the ideas of justice
which reasonable persons are supposed to entertain. If one
repeats a rumour one adds one's own authority to it and implies
that it is well founded, that is to say, that it is true. It is other­
wise when one says or implies that a person is under suspicion of
guilt. This does not imply that he is in fact guilty but only that
there are reasonable grounds for suspicion, which is a different
matter.
Having reached the conclusion that the innuendo should not
have been left to the jury as a separate issue and that the natural
and ordinary meaning of the words does not convey actual guilt
of fraud, I agree with the Court of Appeal that there must be a
new trial, for the learned judge left the question to the jury
" Did they find for plaintiffs or defendants? " without a direction
that the words were incapable of the extreme meaning which I
have rejected.
I would not but for this misdirection as to the meaning of the
words, have thought a new trial should be ordered simply because
the innuendo was wrongly left to the jury, for no harm would have
been done if there had been no misdirection as to the meaning of
the words. The vital misdirection was as to the meaning which
the plaintiffs sought to ascribe to the words. As to this, in a
Scottish case, Stubbs Ltd. v. Russell," Lord Kinnear said:
" The law is perfectly well settled. Before a question of libel
" or slander is submitted to a jury the court must be satisfied
'' that the words complained of are capable of the defamatory
" meaning ascribed to them. That is a matter of law for the
" court." This is also the law of England: compare English
and Scottish Co­'operative Properties Mortgage and Investment

25 L.E. 3 Q.B. 396, 401. ™ [1913] A.C. 386, 393; 29 T.t.E.
409, H.L.

276
HOUSE OP LORDS [1964]

H. L. (E.) Society Ltd. v. Odhams Press Ltd.,27 a case where there was a
1963 long paragraph of innuendoes suggesting various meanings to be
LEWIS attributed to the words complained of but no true innuendo
s. supported by extrinsic facts. All the innuendo meanings were
e n e u r v an<
TELEGRAPH ^ ^ *° * j i both Slesser L.J. and Goddard L.J. referred
LTD
­ to the duty of the judge to withdraw meanings from the jury if
Lord Hoduon. the words are incapable of bearing such meanings.
I have mentioned this last point because at one stage of the
argument it seemed that it might be contended that once the
judge had ruled the words were capable of " any " as opposed to
" the " defamatory meaning ascribed to them the jury were
masters of the situation, but the contention I have adumbrated
was not advanced before your Lordships and was expressly dis­
claimed by counsel in the course of the hearing before the Court
of Appeal.
The responsibility of the judge to exclude a particular meaning
which the plaintiff seeks to ascribe to words in their natural or
ordinary meaning is, I think, clearly established by the decision
of this House in Capital and Counties Bank Ltd. v. Henty &
Sons.2* Henty & Sons had sent out a circular to a number of
their customers giving notice that they would not receive in pay­
ment cheques drawn on any of the vouchers of the bank. There
was no evidence to support the innuendo that the words imputed
insolvency to the bank, and it was held that in their natural and
ordinary meaning the words were not libellous. Lord Blackburn
said 2 9 : " Since Fox's Act at least, however the law may have
" been before, the prosecutor or plaintiff must also satisfy a jury
" that the words are such, and so published, as to convey the
" libellous imputation. If the defendant can get either the court
" or the jury to be in his favour, he succeeds. The prosecutor, or
" plaintiff, cannot succeed unless he gets both the court and the
" jury to decide for him."
Since, in my judgment, there must be a new trial in order
that the jury in each pair of cases may be directed as to the natural
and ordinary meaning of the words published in the two news­
papers, I need say nothing on the question of damages except that
I agree with the Court of Appeal that the damages were in each
case so excessive that they cannot be allowed to stand. I also
agree that as a result of the decision of your Lordships' House in
28
" [1940] 1 K B . 440; 56 T.L.E. 7 App.Cas. 741.
2
195; [1940] 1 All E.E. 1, C.A. » Ibid. 776.

277
A.C. AND PRIVY COUNCIL.

British Transport Commission v. Gourley,30 the jury in each case H. L. (E.)
so far as the plaintiff company is concerned should have been lg63
directed that, since a company can only suffer in its pocket by loss ­
of revenue attributable to a libel, so regard must be had to the „
fact that the profits of the company will in large measure be DAILY
passed on to the Eevenue and not retained for the benefit of the LTD­
shareholders. T 7—
Lord Hodson
I am further of opinion that a direction should be given to the
jury as to the effect of section 12 of the Defamation Act, 1952,
which enables other claims by the plaintiffs to be disclosed to the
jury with the object of preventing compensation being given twice
over for the same libel, so that the jury should be directed to apply
themselves to the injury inflicted in the particular case.
I would dismiss the appeal.

LORD DEVLIN. My Lords, the natural and ordinary meaning
of words ought in theory to be the same for the lawyer as for the
layman, because the lawyer's first rule of construction is that
words are to be given their natural and ordinary meaning as
popularly understood. The.proposition that ordinary words are
the same for the lawyer as for the layman is as a matter of pure
construction undoubtedly true. But it is very difficult to draw
the line between pure construction and implication, and the lay­
man's capacity for implication is much greater than the lawyer's.
The lawyer's rule is that the implication must be necessary as
well as reasonable. The layman reads in an implication much
more freely; and unfortunately, as the law of defamation has to
take into account, is especially prone to do so when it is
derogatory.
In the law of defamation these wider sorts of implication are
called innuendoes. The word explains itself and is very apt for
the purpose. In Rex v. Home 31 De Grey C.J. said: " In the case
" of a libel which does not in itself contain the crime, without
" some extrinsic aid, it is necessary that it should be put upon
" the record, by way of introduction, if it is new matter; or by
" way of innuendo, if it is only matter of explanation. For
" a n innuendo means nothing more than the words, ' i d est,'
"'scilicet,' or 'meaning,' or 'aforesaid,' as, explanatory of a
" subject­matter sufficiently expressed before."
An innuendo had to be pleaded and the line between an
ordinary meaning and an innuendo might not always be easy to

3° [1956] A.C. 185. 31 2 Cowp. 672, 684.

278
HOUSE OF LORDS [1964]

H L. (E.) draw. A derogatory implication may be so near the surface that
1963 it is hardly hidden at all or it may be more difficult to detect. If
j­ it is said of a man that he is a fornicator the statement cannot be
v. enlarged by innuendo. If it is said of him that he was seen going
TELEGRAPH ' n *° a brothel, the same meaning would probably be conveyed to
LTD
­ nine men out of ten. But the lawyer might say that in the latter
Lord Devlin, case a derogatory meaning was not a necessary one because a man
might go to a brothel for an innocent purpose. An innuendo
pleading that the words were understood to mean that he went
there for an immoral purpose would not, therefore, be ridiculous.
To be on the safe side, a pleader used an innuendo whenever the
defamation was not absolutely explicit. That was very frequent,
since scandalmongers are induced by the penalties for defamation
to veil their meaning to some extent. Moreover, there were some
pleaders who got to think that a statement of claim was somehow
made more forceful by an innuendo, however plain the words.
So rhetorical innuendoes were pleaded, such as to say of a man
that he was a fornicator meant and was understood to mean that
he was not fit to associate with his wife and family and was a man
who ought to be shunned by all decent persons and so forth.
Your Lordships were told, and I have no doubt it is true, that
before 1949 it was very rare indeed to find a statement of claim in
defamation without an innuendo paragraph.
I have said that a derogatory implication might be easy or
difficult to detect; and, of course, it might not be detected at all,
except by a person who was already in possession of some specific
information. Thus, to say of a man that he was seen to enter a
named house would contain a derogatory implication for anyone
who knew that that house was a brothel but not for anyone who
did not. In the passage I have quoted, De Grey C.J. distinguished
between this' sort of implication and the implication that is to be
derived from the words themselves without extrinsic aid, and he
treats the term " innuendo " as descriptive only of the latter.
Since then the term has come to be used for both sorts of
implication. Either sort had to be " p u t upon the record," as
the Chief Justice said, and extrinsic facts had to be pleaded
" b y way of introduction," as he also said, or as a prefatory
" averment," as it came to be called. Section 61 of the
Common Law Procedure Act, 1852, did away with the necessity
of pleading the prefatory averment, while leaving it neces­
sary to plead the innuendo: the section provided that '' the
" plaintiff shall be at liberty to aver that the words or matter

2TO
A.C. AND PRIVY COUNCIL.

" complained of were used in a defamatory sense, specifying such H. L. (E.)
" defamatory sense without any prefatory averment." 1963
My Lords, a system of pleading was built up on this basis ~ ~
which in 1949 was disconcerted by the introduction of a new rule v.
—Ord. 19, r. 6 (2). The object of the rule was to require that TELEGRAPH
extrinsic facts must not only be proved but pleaded, thus restoring LTD.
the position before 1852. The object was simple enough. It is i,ora Devlin.
the language of the rule that has caused the difficulties which have
recently been brought to a head and have been the subject of
three decisions, including the present one, by the Court of Appeal.
The sub­rule reads: " (2) In an action for libel or slander if the
" plaintiff alleges that the words or matter complained of were
" used in a defamatory sense other than their ordinary meaning,
" he shall give particulars of the facts and matters on which he
" relies in support of such sense."
The word " innuendo " is not used. But the effect of the
language is that any meaning that does not require the support
of extrinsic fact is assumed to be part of the ordinary meaning of
the words. Accordingly, an innuendo, however well concealed,
that is capable of being detected in the language used is deemed
to be part of the ordinary meaning.
This might be an academic matter if it were not for the
principle that the ordinary meaning of words and the meaning
enlarged by innuendo give rise to separate causes of action.
This principle, which originated out of the old forms of pleading,
seems to me in modern times to be of dubious value. But it is
now .firmly settled on the authority of Sim v. Stretch,32 and the
House was not asked to qualify it. How is this principle affected
by the new rule? Are there now three causes of action? If there
are only two, to which of them does the innuendo that is inherent
in the words belong? In Grubb v. Bristol United Press Ltd.33
the Court of Appeal, disagreeing with some observations made by
Diplock L.J. in Loughans v. Odhams Press Ltd.,34, decided in
effect that there were only two causes of action and that the
innuendo cause of action comprised only the innuendo that was
supported by extrinsic facts.
My Lords, I think, on the whole, that this is the better
solution, though it brings with it a consequence that I dislike,
namely, that at two points there is a divergence between the
popular and the legal meaning of words. Just as the popular and

32 52 T.L.E. 669. 34 [ i g 6 3 ] i Q . B . 299.
ss [1963] 1 Q.B. 309.

280
HOUSE OP LORDS [1964]

H. L. (E.) legal meanings of " malice " have drifted apart, so the popular
1963 and legal meanings of " innuendo " must now be separated. I
T shall in the rest of my speech describe as a legal innuendo the
v. innuendo that is the subject­matter of a separate cause of action.
TELEGRAPH ^ suppose that it does not matter what terminology is used so
LTD
­ long as it is agreed. But I do not care for the description of the
Lord Devlin, popular innuendo as a false innuendo; it is the law and not popular
usage that gives a false and restricted meaning to the word. The
other respect is that the natural and ordinary meaning of words
for the purposes of defamation is not their natural and ordinary
meaning for other purposes of the law. There must be added to
the implications which a court is prepared to make as a matter of
construction all such insinuations and innuendoes as could reason­
ably be read into them by the ordinary man.
The consequence of all this is, I think, that there will have to
be three paragraphs in a statement of claim where previously two
have served. In the first paragraph the defamatory words will be
set out as hitherto. It may be that they will speak for them­
selves. If not, a second paragraph will set out those innuendoes
or indirect meanings which go beyond the literal meaning of the
words but which the pleader claims to be inherent in them.
Thirdly, if the pleader has the necessary material, he can plead
a secondary meaning or legal innuendo supported by particulars
under Ord. 19, r. 6 (2). Hitherto it has been customary to put
the whole innuendo into one paragraph, but now this may easily
result in the confusion of two causes of action and in consequent
embarrassment. The essential distinction between the second and
third paragraph will lie in the fact that particulars under the rule
must be appended to the third. That is, so to speak, the hallmark
of the legal innuendo. The pleader can, if he chooses, emphasise
the character of the second paragraph by including in it some such
words as were used in Loughans' case.34 That case was, in my
opinion, rightly decided and rightly distinguished from Grubb's
case 3 i by Upjohn L.J. in the latter case. Or the pleader can, as
was suggested by Holroyd Pearce L.J. in Grubb's case,36 plead
in the second paragraph that the words in their natural and
ordinary meaning were understood to mean one thing; and then
he could plead in the third paragraph that by reason of the facts
thereinafter particularised they were understood to mean another.
The meanings alleged in the third paragraph can be the same as
36
3< [1963] 1 Q.B. 299. Ibid. 329.
as [1963] 1 Q.B. 309, 331­332.

A.C. AND PRIVY COUNCIL. 281

those alleged in the second paragraph if the pleader is relying H. L. (E.)
upon the legal innuendo only as an alternative; or they can be 1963
different. But the essential thing is that if a paragraph is ~
unaccompanied by particulars it cannot be a legal innuendo since t>.
for a legal innuendo particulars are mandatory and the innuendo DAILY
cannot be proved without them. LTD.
It was suggested in argument that the division of the innuendo j ^ , ^ Devijn ■
into two paragraphs would be awkward for the pleader. It is said
that it may not always be easy to decide whether an extrinsic
factor relied on is a matter of special knowledge, or whether it is
just general knowledge in the light of which the ordinary, though
indirect, meaning of the words has to be ascertained. I do not
think that this should present any difficulty in practice. The
pleader must ask himself whether he contemplates that evidence
will be called in support of the allegation: if he does, it is a legal
innuendo, and if he does not, it is not. If he is in doubt, he can
plead in two paragraphs; and then if at the trial his opponent
agrees or the judge rules that it is a matter of general knowledge,
the legal innuendo can be dropped.
It was also suggested to your Lordships that the pleading of a
middle paragraph was unnecessary and even improper, and your
Lordships were told that since 1949 some judges have discouraged
the pleading of all innuendoes that are not legal innuendoes. I
should certainly like to see what I have called rhetorical innuen­
does discouraged. But I am satisfied that the pleading of an
innuendo in every case where the defamatory meaning is not
quite explicit is at the least highly desirable, and I am glad to
observe that in Loughans' case 37 the attempt to strike out the
innuendo failed. An attempt of this sort is no doubt inspired by
the thought that it is unnecessary to plead the ordinary meaning
of words and that that is all that the popular innuendo is. I think
that that thought is fallacious. It does not take into account the
difference I have pointed out between the meaning of words in
the law of defamation and their meaning for the general purposes
of the law. In general the meaning of words is a matter of law
and therefore need not be pleaded, though where there is a difficult
question of construction in issue it is usual and convenient to do
so. But in defamation the meaning of words is a question of fact,
that is, there is libel or no libel according to the impression the
words convey to the jury and not according to the construction
put upon them by the judge.

" [1963] 1 Q.B. 299.

282
HOUSE OF LORDS [1964]

H. L. (E.) I do not mean that ingenuity should be expended in devising
ig63 and setting out diSerent shades of meaning. Distinct meanings
are what should be pleaded; and a reasonable test of distinctness
c would be whether the justification would be substantially different.
DAILY In the present case, for example, there could have been three
T I T ITITIAPH it •

LTD distinct categories of justification—proof of the fact of an inquiry,
proof of reasonable grounds for it and proof of guilt. If no
' innuendo had been pleaded and there had been full proof of
grounds for inquiry, I cannot think that in a closing speech the
plaintiff could without any previous notice invite the jury to say
that the words meant guilt and to reject the justification as
insufficient. Moreover, where distinct meanings are possible and
the judge is invited to rule separately on one or more, it is desirable
that the meanings put to the jury should be on the record. But
that touches on a point of substance which I shall consider later.
I understand your Lordships all to be of the opinion that the
pleading of the ordinary or popular innuendo is permissible but
do not intend that the House should rule on whether it is neces­
sary. I agree that the point does not arise directly in this case,
and therefore I, too, shall reserve my judgment on it. But I
make the comment that if it is not necessary, it is nevertheless
a form of pleading universally used from the earliest times until
1949, and I can see nothing in the new rule that should alter so
well established a practice.
My Lords, I have made a very long preliminary to the con­
sideration of the pleading point in this case. Your Lordships were
invited from the Bar to deal in detail with all the difficulties of
pleading involved in that point and that have recently come to the
fore in other cases, and I have thought it right to do so. J must
now state how in the light of what I have said generally I should
decide the point at issue. Paragraph 4 of the statement of claim
is as follows: '' By the said words the defendants meant and were
" understood to mean that the affairs of the plaintiffs and/or its
"subsidiaries were conducted fraudulently or dishonestly or in
" such a way that the police suspected that their affairs were so
" conducted."
The Court of Appeal considered this paragraph to be defective,
and I agree with them. This does not involve any sort of
criticism of the learned pleader, who drafted his statement of
claim at a time when it was possible to take almost any view
of the points I have been canvassing. It is plain now that para­
graph 4 must be treated as in form a plea of a legal innuendo.
But in substance it is not a legal innuendo because no extrinsic

283
A.C. AND PRIVY COUNCIL.
H
facts are pleaded: general knowledge is, as I have indicated ­ L ­ (B­)
already, not an extrinsic fact for the purpose of rule 6 (2), but is 1963
matter, not requiring to be proved, in the light of which the jury "
can interpret the publication. In substance the paragraph is a c.
plea of a r r
r
popular innuendo and the confusion between substance m DAILY
TELEGRAPH
and form makes it embarrassing. LTD.
But I cannot, with respect, agree with the Court of Appeal Lorij~[)7viin
that the way in which the judge treated this point is by itself a
ground for a new trial. He went by the substance of the para­
graph and left it to the jury as an ordinary innuendo, not a legal
one. Perhaps he ought to have insisted on an amendment in the
form, but he stated the course he was going to take and neither
counsel offered any objection to it. I cannot think that the jury
could have been in any way misled. There has been some discus­
sion about whether the "plaintiffs will have to amend before pro­
ceeding to a new trial. That is for them to say. In the light of
all this discussion they would perhaps be wise not to take
indulgence for granted.
I turn now to the main ground for ordering a new trial. This
was that the judge misdirected the jury by failing to tell them
that the words were not capable of bearing one or more of the
defamatory meanings alleged in paragraph 4 of the statement of
claim. It is admitted that the words are capable of some
defamatory meaning, and I think it is undoubtedly defamatory
of a company to say that its affairs are being inquired into by the
police. But paragraph 4 alleges that the words meant " that the
" affairs of the plaintiffs and/or its subsidiaries were conducted
" fraudulently or dishonestly or in such a way that the police
" suspected that their affairs were so conducted." This is saying
that the words mean either that the plaintiffs were guilty of fraud
or that they were suspected of fraud. If it is permissible to
distinguish between these two meanings, then for reasons which
I shall give as I proceed I should.hold that the words are capable
of the latter meaning but not of the former, and I should on this
basis agree with the Court of Appeal that the jury should have
been so directed and that, since they were not, there should be a
new trial. But Mr. Milmo has submitted that it is not right so
to distinguish.
In the first place, he relies on what are called the " rumour
" cases." I agree, of course, that you cannot escape liability for
defamation by putting the libel behind a prefix such as " I have
" been told that . . . " or " It is rumoured that . . .", and then
asserting that it was true that you had been told or that it was in

284
HOUSE OF LORDS [1964]

H. L. (E.) fact being rumoured. You have, as Horridge J. said, in a passage
1933 that was quoted with approval by Greer L.J. in Cookson v.
Harewwd,3* " to prove that the subject­matter of the rumour
v. " was true." But this is not a case of repetition or rumour. I
a ree w
TELEGRAPH g i * n the distinction drawn by Horridge J. on this point,
LTD. though not necessarily with his limited view of the effect of the
Lord Devlin. hbel m that case. Anyway, even if this is to be treated as a
rumour case, it is still necessary to find out what the rumour is.
A rumour that a man is suspected of fraud is different from one
that he is guilty of it. For the purpose of the law of libel a hearsay
statement is the same as a direct statement, and that is all there
is to it.
The real point, I think, that Mr. Milmo makes is that whether
the libel is looked at as a statement or as a rumour, there is no
difference between saying that a man is suspected of fraud and
saying that he is guilty of it. It is undoubtedly defamatory, he
submits, to say of a man that he is suspected of fraud, but it is
defamatory only because it suggests that he is guilty of fraud:
so there is no distinction between the two. This is to me an
attractive way of putting the point. On analysis I think that the
reason for its attraction is that as a maxim for practical applica­
tion, though not as a proposition of law, it is about three­quarters
true. When an imputation is made in a general way, the ordinary
man is not likely to distinguish between hints and allegations,
suspicion and guilt. It is the broad effect that counts and it is no
use submitting to a judge that he ought to dissect the statement
before he submits it to the jury. But if on the other hand the
distinction clearly emerges from the words used it cannot­ be
ignored. If it is said of a man—" I do not believe that he is
'' guilty of fraud but I cannot deny that he has given grounds
" for suspicion," it seems to me to be wrong to say that in no
circumstances can they be justified except by the speaker proving
the truth of that which he has expressly said he did not believe.
It must depend on whether the impression conveyed by the
speaker is one of frankness or one of insinuation. Equally, in my
opinion, it is wrong to say that, if in truth the person spoken of
never gave any cause for suspicion at all, he has no remedy
because he was expressly exonerated of fraud. A man's reputa­
tion can suffer if it can truly be said of him that although innocent
he behaved in a suspicious way; but it will suffer much more if it
is said that he is not innocent.

8» [1932] 2 K.B. 478n., 485n., C.A.

A.C. AND PRIVY COUNCIL. 285

It is not, therefore, correct to say as a matter of law that a H. L. (E.)
statement of suspicion imputes guilt. I t can be said as a matter igg3
of practice that it very often does so, because although suspicion ~
of guilt is something different from proof of guilt, it is the broad v.
impression conveyed by the libel that has to be considered and x B L ^ ^ p H
not the meaning of each word under analysis. A man who wants LTD.
to talk at large about smoke may have to pick his words very Lord Devlin.
carefully if he wants to exclude the suggestion that there is also
a fire; but it can be done. One always gets back to the funda­
mental question: what is the meaning that the words convey to
the ordinary man: you cannot make a rule about that. They
can convey a meaning of suspicion short of guilt; but loose talk
about suspicion can very easily convey the impression that it is a
suspicion that is well founded.
In the libel that the House has to consider there is, however,
no mention of suspicion at all. What is said is simply that the
plaintiff's affairs are being inquired into. That is defamatory, as
is admitted, because a man's reputation may in fact be injured
by such a statement even though it is quite consistent with
innocence. I dare say that it would not be injured if everybody
bore in mind, as they ought to, that no man is guilty until he is
proved so, but unfortunately they do not. It can be defamatory
without it being necessary to suggest that the words contained a
hidden allegation that there were good grounds for­inquiry. A
statement that a woman has been raped can affect her reputation,
although logically it means that she is innocent of any impurity:
Yousoupoff v. Metro­Goldwyn­Mayer Pictures Ltd.39 So a state­
ment that a man has been acquitted of a crime with which in
fact he was never charged might lower his reputation. Logic is
not the test. But a statement that an inquiry is on foot may go
further and may positively convey the impression that there are
grounds for the inquiry, that is, that there is something to suspect.
Just as a bare statement of suspicion may convey the impression
that there are grounds for belief in guilt, so a bare statement of
the fact of an inquiry may convey the impression that there are
grounds for suspicion. I do not say that in this case it does; but
I think that the words in their context and in the circumstances of
publication are capable of conveying that impression. But can

" (1934) 50 T.L.E. 581, C.A.
A.C. 1964. 19

286 HOUSE OF LORDS [1964]

H. L. (E.) they convey an impression of guilt? Let it be supposed, first,
1963 that a statement that there is an inquiry conveys an impression
LBWH °* suspicion; and, secondly, that a statement of suspicion conveys
*• an impression of guilt. It does not follow from these two suppo­
TBLBGRAPH sitions that a statement that there is an inquiry conveys an im­
LTD.
—­ pression of guilt. For that, two fences have to be taken instead
' of one. While, as I have said, I am prepared to accept that the
jury could take the first, I do not think that in a case like the
present, where there is only the bare statement that a police
inquiry is being made, it could take the second in the same stride.
If the ordinary sensible man was capable of thinking that where­
ever there was a police inquiry there was guilt, it would be almost
impossible to give accurate information about anything: but in
my opinion he is not. I agree with the view of the Court
of Appeal.
There is on this branch of the case a final point to be con­
sidered. It is undoubtedly the law that the judge should not
leave the question " libel or no libel " to the jury unless the words
are reasonably capable of a defamatory meaning. But if several
defamatory meanings are pleaded or suggested, can the judge
direct the jury that the words are capable of one meaning but
not of another? The point is important here because the defen­
dant admits that the words are defamatory in one sense but dis­
putes that they are defamatory in the senses pleaded in the
statement of claim and contends that the judge should have so
directed the jury. Mr. Milmo and Mr. Duncan appear at one
time to have argued in the Court of Appeal that the function of
the judge was exhausted when he ruled that the words were
capable of being defamatory and that it was not for him to in­
quire whether they were or were not capable of any particular
defamatory meaning. But later they abandoned the point and
therefore did not initiate the discussion of it here. Nevertheless
there was considerable discussion of it because some of your
Lordships at one time felt that it was a point which ought to be
considered.
In the result I think that all your Lordships are now clearly
of the opinion that the judge must rule whether the words are
capable of bearing each of the defamatory meanings, if there be
more than one, put forward .by the plaintiff. ;.

287
A.O. AND PEIVT COUNCIL.

This supports indirectly my view on the desirability of plead­ H. L. (E.)
ing different meanings. If the plaintiff can get before the jury ag63
only those meanings which the judge rules as capable of being —:—
defamatory, there is good reason for having the meanings alleged „
set out precisely as part of the record. DAILY
For the reasons I have given earlier, I agree that there must J^J,
be a new trial on the ground of misdirection: but I should in any —­
event have considered that there should be a new trial on the issue
of damages as they are, in my opinion, ridiculously out of pro­
portion to the injury suffered.
Appeal dismissed.

Solicitors: Zeffertt, Heard & Morley Lawson; Simmons &
Simmons; Swepstone, Walsh & Son.
F. C.