E. Hulton & Co. v. Jones [1910] A.C. 20

(Landmark Judgement)

In this case, the defendants, who were newspaper publishers, published an article about a fictional character named Artemus Jones who was portrayed as having an affair. However, coincidentally, there was a real person named Artemus Jones who felt that the article defamed him and filed a defamation lawsuit. The Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the claimant, Artemus Jones. The defendants appealed, arguing that they had no intention of referring to the real Artemus Jones, as they were unaware of his existence at the time of publication.

Issue before the Court

The primary issue in this case was whether a defendant can be held liable for libel when the article in question did not explicitly mention the plaintiff.

Analysis of the Court

The court ruled in favour of the plaintiff, affirming the lower court's decision. It was held that the plaintiff had the legal right to proceed with the lawsuit. The court emphasized that a defendant accused of libel cannot escape liability by arguing that there was no intent to defame. The journal and its owners were held accountable for publishing the defamatory statements, even if the article did not name the plaintiff directly. The court reiterated that intent is not a valid defense in libel cases.
The Court was of the view that Libel occurs when a statement damages someone’s reputation in a way that any reasonable person in similar circumstances would understand. The court clarified that even if the defendant did not intend to harm the plaintiff, their actions still caused reputational damage, which is sufficient to establish liability. The court noted that the defendant’s belief in the truth of the statement is irrelevant if the statement is ultimately defamatory.

Concluding Remark

In cases where the plaintiff is not directly named, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to prove that the statement was directed at them. The court concluded that the plaintiff’s reputation suffered irreparable harm due to the publication, making the defendant responsible for the damages. Therefore, regardless of the defendant’s intent, the defamatory effect of the statement justifies the court’s decision.

Posted By: Manas shrivastava

Back