Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Theaker V Richardson (1962) 1 All ER 229, (1

    Uploaded by

    narkoo
    127 views1 page
    Defendant wrote a highly defamatory letter about plaintiff and intended to deliver it personally but instead posted it through her letterbox. Plaintiff's husband found the unaddressed envelope and opened it, thinking it was an election address. At trial, the jury found that defendant anticipated someone other than plaintiff would open the letter, and it was natural her husband would open it. The verdict against defendant for libel was upheld on appeal. Though the damages of £500 were high, they were not excessive given defendant's conduct.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Theaker_v_Richardson_[1962]_1_All_ER_229,_[1

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Defendant wrote a highly defamatory letter about plaintiff and intended to deliver it personally but instead posted it through her letterbox. Plaintiff's husband found the unaddressed envelope and opened it, thinking it was an election address. At trial, the jury found that defendant anticipated someone other than plaintiff would open the letter, and it was natural her husband would open it. The verdict against defendant for libel was upheld on appeal. Though the damages of £500 were high, they were not excessive given defendant's conduct.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    127 views1 page

    Theaker V Richardson (1962) 1 All ER 229, (1

    Uploaded by

    narkoo
    Defendant wrote a highly defamatory letter about plaintiff and intended to deliver it personally but instead posted it through her letterbox. Plaintiff's husband found the unaddressed envelope and opened it, thinking it was an election address. At trial, the jury found that defendant anticipated someone other than plaintiff would open the letter, and it was natural her husband would open it. The verdict against defendant for libel was upheld on appeal. Though the damages of £500 were high, they were not excessive given defendant's conduct.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Page 1

    Theaker v Richardson
    [1962] 1 All ER 229, [1962] 1 WLR 151, 106 Sol Jo 151

    Court: CA

    Judgment Date: circa 1962

    Catchwords & Digest

    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.

    Cases considered by this case


    Annotations: All CasesCourt: ALL COURTS
    Sort by: Judgment Date (Latest First)
    Treatment Case Name Citations Court Date Signal
    Not Determined Sharp v Skues (1909) 25 TLR 336 CA circa 1909

    You might also like