“House of Lords defines the modern test for defamatory meaning”
The House of Lords held that the correct test is whether the words would tend to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally. On the facts, the communication was capable of conveying an imputation reflecting on the claimant's character and so was defamatory.
The claimant sued over a telegram sent by the defendant to the claimant's employer concerning money said to be owed by the claimant. The message implied dishonesty or unreliability, and the issue was whether those words were capable of bearing a defamatory meaning.
Whether the words complained of were capable of being defamatory at common law, and what test should be applied to determine whether a statement is defamatory.
Lord Atkin rejected formulations that focused merely on exposing a person to hatred, ridicule or contempt as too narrow or incomplete. He stated that a defamatory statement is one that tends to lower a person in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally, which better captures imputations of dishonesty and similar attacks on character even if they do not provoke ridicule. Applying that approach, the telegram could reasonably be understood as disparaging the claimant's integrity.
This case is a foundational authority on the definition of defamatory meaning in UK law. Courts continue to cite it for the 'right-thinking members of society' test.
Lord Atkin discussed earlier descriptions of defamatory meaning and explained that references to hatred, ridicule or contempt were not exhaustive of the common-law concept.
OSCOLA Citation
Sim v Stretch [1936] 2 All ER 1237 (HL)
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
[2026] EWHC 1095 (KB)
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.