Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Theaker V Richardson (1962) 1 All ER 229, (1
Theaker V Richardson (1962) 1 All ER 229, (1
Theaker v Richardson
[1962] 1 All ER 229, [1962] 1 WLR 151, 106 Sol Jo 151
Court: CA
LIBEL AND SLANDER - THE CAUSES OF ACTION - PUBLICATION - LIBEL PROCEEDINGS - WHAT
AMOUNTS TO - IN CIVIL CASES - WHO IS OR IS NOT A THIRD PARTY - HUSBAND OR WIFE - OF
PLAINTIFF
Plaintiff, whose husband was employed by coal merchants to deliver coal, was a member of the local urban
district council, as also was defendant's wife; though there was no political basis for it, there was ill-feeling
between plaintiff and defendant's wife. Being incensed by remarks made by plaintiff to his wife, defendant
wrote a highly defamatory letter to plaintiff, for which he had no justification. In his angry state he found his
writing illegible, so he typed the letter without signing it and he also typed plaintiff's name and address on the
envelope, a cheap manilla business envelope, stuck down the flap and fixed it with Sellotape. The letter
began 'For the way you have treated [defendant's wife] today I am going to show you up in every way I
possibly can.' Defendant intended to deliver the letter to plaintiff in person but changed his mind and put it
through her letterbox. It was picked up by plaintiff's husband, who opened it without looking at the name on
the envelope, thinking it was an election address. At the trial of an action for damages for libel brought by
plaintiff against defendant, the jury answered in the affirmative two questions left to them, viz (a) Did
defendant anticipate that someone other than plaintiff would open and read the letter? (b) Was it a natural
and probable consequence of defendant's writing and delivery of the letter that plaintiff's husband would
open and read it? The jury awarded plaintiff £500 damages. On appeal: Held (1) the verdict must be upheld,
since the questions were questions of fact proper to be left to the jury and there was material on which the
jury could have reached the affirmative answers that they returned, so that their findings were not perverse;
(2) though the damages were high, they were not so excessive as to warrant intervention by the court for
defendant's conduct could properly have been taken into consideration in assessing them.