Sim v Stretch
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Lord Atkin,Lord Russell of Killowen,Lord Macmillan |
| Judgment Date | 22 July 1936 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1936] UKHL J0722-2 |
| Date | 22 July 1936 |
| Court | House of Lords |
[1936] UKHL J0722-2
Lord Atkin.
Lord Russell of Killowen.
Lord Macmillan.
House of Lords
After hearing Counsel, as well on Tuesday the 23d, as on Thursday the 25th, days of June last, upon the Petition and Appeal of Alexander Frederick Churchill Sim, of "Old Barton" Cookham Dean, in the County of Berks, praying, That the matter of the Order set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely, an Order of His Majesty's Court of Appeal, of the 6th of June 1935, might be reviewed before His Majesty the King, in His Court of Parliament, and that the said Order might be reversed, varied, or altered, or that the Petitioner might have such other relief in the premises as to His Majesty the King, in His Court of Parliament, might seem meet; as also upon the printed Case of Herbert Mercer Stretch, lodged in answer to the said Appeal; and due consideration had this day of what was offered on either side in this Cause:
It is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in the Court of Parliament of His Majesty the King assembled, That the said Order of His Majesty's Court of Appeal, of the 6th day of June 1935, complained of in the said Appeal, be, and the same is hereby, Set aside: And it is further Ordered, That the Verdict and Judgment at the trial on the issue of libel should be set aside and judgment returned for the Defendant on the said issue, and that judgment for the Plaintiff should be reduced to Twenty-five pounds (£25), and that the Plaintiff should have the general costs of the action except in so far as they have been increased by the issue as to libel, which costs the Defendant should have with a set off and there should be a certificate for High Court costs: And it is further Ordered, That the Respondent do pay, or cause to be paid, to the said Appellant the Costs incurred by him in the Court of Appeal, and also the Costs incurred by him in respect of the said Appeal to this House, the amount of such last-mentioned Costs to be certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments: And it is also further Ordered, That the Cause be, and the same is hereby, remitted back to the Kind's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice, to do therein as shall be just and consistent with this Judgment.
My Lords,
This appeal reaches your Lordships' House in litigation arising out of a quarrel between neighbours residing at Cookham Dean: and concerns the vicissitudes of a domestic servant, Edith Saville, whose fortune it was to be employed at successive times by both Plaintiff and Defendant. When the story opens she was employed temporarily as general maid by the Defendant at his house "Old Barton." She had formerly been employed by a Mrs. Sterne at another house, "The Twigs," situate a short distance from "Old Barton." Early in 1934 the Plaintiff bought "The Twigs" from Mrs. Sterne. The Plaintiff's wife met Edith Saville at "The Twigs" in the course of taking over the house and arranged with her to come back as maid to "The Twigs." It appears that this arrangement did not meet with the approval of the Defendant's wife: but Edith took up service with the Plaintiff and his wife at "The Twigs" on 15th March, 1934, as from 8th March. On 8th April when a month's wages were due they were paid to the servant, but the Plaintiff suggested that she should put the money in the Post Office Savings Bank. On 12th April, in the morning, the Plaintiff and his wife went to Maidenhead, about three miles away, to shop, intending to deposit the money in the bank. Whether they had retained it or not for that purpose in the meantime did not appear. While they were away the Defendant appeared in "The Twigs" drive, called Edith out, walked back to "Old Barton" with her: then took her with Mrs. Stretch in their car to "Georgian House" in Maidenhead where the Defendant's father lived. The party seem to have stayed there till 15th April when they all returned to "Old Barton." Edith remained in the service of the Defendant: and was there at the time of the trial. She gave evidence on behalf of the Plaintiff. When she left "The Twigs" on the 12th there was no other servant in it: and the Plaintiff and his wife returned to find the house deserted and Edith missing. About one o'clock that day the Defendant dictated to the Post Office at Maidenhead the following telegram:—
"Stretch, The Twigs, Cookham Dean. Edith has resumed her service with us to-day. Please send her possessions and the money you borrowed also her wages to Old Barton. Sim."
This was duly despatched to the Post Office, Cookham Dean, which is in a village shop: and was received by the Plaintiff soon after despatch. On 1st May the Plaintiff commenced the present action, alleging two causes of action (1) that the Defendant had maliciously enticed from his service Edith Saville. (2) Libel contained in the telegram. The case was tried in February, 1935, before Talbot J. and a common jury. On the first cause of action the jury found a verdict for the Plaintiff for £25 damages. There was abundant evidence to justify the verdict: and there has been no appeal from it. On the alleged libel the jury found a verdict for the Plaintiff for £250: and in this respect there was an appeal to the Court of Appeal which has now reached this House. Before dealing with the appeal it is necessary to explain the reference in the telegram to "money borrowed." It appears that at the end of March, "a week just before Easter," which that year fell on 1st April, Mrs. Sim had been away for a week. She had left money with Edith to pay the books: but had arranged on Edith's suggestion that anything over Edith should pay out of her own money. Apparently Edith paid two small items amounting to 14s. which sum was outstanding on 12th April: and was in fact paid...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lewis v Daily Telegraph Ltd; Rubber Improvement Ltd v Daily Telegraph Ltd; Rubber Improvement Ltd v Associated Newspapers Ltd
... ... 19, r. 6 (2) (post, p. 1091 ) ... 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. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures Ltd. ( 1950 ) 66 T.L.R ... ...
-
Thornton v Telegraph Media Group Ltd
...and in a number of different, but related, contexts in defamation actions. 63 It is necessary to revisit Sim v Stretch [1936] TLR 669; [1936] 2 All ER 1237. The words complained of in that case were in a telegram referring to the plaintiff. The text referred also to Edith Saville, who was a......
- Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin v Lee Kuan Yew
-
Lee Kuan Yew v Jeyaretnam JB (No 1)
...bears the meaning as claimed by the plaintiff, it is abundantly clear that applying the test of Lord Atkin set out in Sim v Stretch [1936] 2 All ER 1237 at p 1240 it will be defamatory of the plaintiff. However, I will have to consider the other issues which I had mentioned at the beginning......
-
Defamation vs Freedom Of Speech In Malaysia
...technology has enabled people to voice out their thoughts and opinions more easily than ever before. Footnotes 1. Sim v Stretch [1936] 2 All ER 1237 2. Mitchell v Australian Broadcasting Commission (1958) 60 WAIR 38 3. Section 8 of the Defamation Act 1957 4. Dato' Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamalu......
-
UK Supreme Court revisits the definition of serious harm in the Defamation Act 2013
...of Appeal which upheld the High Court's decision. The newspapers then appealed to the Supreme Court. With reference to Sim v. Stretch [1936] 2 All ER 1237, the Supreme Court provided a working definition of a defamatory statement "The words tend to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of r......
-
Corporate Defamation: A Perspective on Analyst Reports
...Saloon Omnibus Co v. Hawkins, [1859] 4 H & N 87 at 90. [6] Dixon v. Holden, [1868–1869] 7 LR Eq 488 at 492. [7] Sim v Stretch [1936] 2 All ER 1237; Hindustan Unilever Ltd v Reckitt Benckiser India Ltd, ILR (2014) 2 Del 1288. [8] B Kalyani v District Collector, Villupuram, (2012) 2 MWN (Civi......
-
Taming the ‘Chilling Effect’ of Defamation Law: English Experience and Implications for Australia
...Thornton v Telegraph Media Group Ltd (2011) 1 WLR 1985, [94]–[95] (‘Thornton’).16. Ibid [85], [88]–[89](i).17. Sim v Stretch [1936] 52 TLR 669, 671 (‘Sim’).18. Ibid 672.19. David Rolph, ‘Triviality, Proportionality and the Minimum Threshold of Seriousness in Defamation Law’(2019) 23(3)Media......
-
Table of cases
...v British Columbia Television Broadcasting System Ltd) [1986] 2 WWR 609 (BCSC) ...............................291 Sim v Stretch, [1936] 2 All ER 1237, 52 TLR 669 (HL)...................................... 430 Sindell v Abbott Laboratories, 26 Cal 3d 588, 607 P2d 924 (1980) .......................
-
Table of cases
...v. British Columbia Television Broadcasting System Ltd.) [1986] 2 W.W.R. 609 (B.C.S.C.) ....................... 288 Sim v. Stretch, [1936] 2 All E.R. 1237, 52 T.L.R. 669 (H.L.) .............................. 428 Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories, 26 Cal. 3d. 588, 607 P.2d 924 (1980) ................
-
Table of Cases
...Television Broadcasting System Ltd.) [1986] 2 W.W.R. 609 (B.C.S.C.) ....................... 273 The Law of TorTs 490 Sim v. Stretch, [1936] 2 All E.R. 1237, 52 T.L.R. 669 (H.L.) .............................. 407 Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories, 26 Cal. 3d. 588, 607 P.2d 924 (1980) ...............