Russell v. stubbs Ltd [1913] UKHL 676 (03 April 1913)

Russell v. stubbs Ltd [1913] UKHL 676 (03 April 1913)

The publication, when read with its explicit explanatory note, is not capable in law of bearing the defamatory meaning that the pursuer was unable to pay his debts; the innuendo proposed by the pursuer is not a reasonable, natural, or necessary inference from the words used. Therefore, the issue should not be allowed to go to a jury, and judgment must be entered for the defenders.

Citation
[1913] UKHL 676
Parties
Pursuer/respondent: John Russell; Defender/appellant: Stubbs Limited
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
03 April 1913
Procedural Posture
Appeal (action for Slander/libel) / House of Lords Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; interlocutors reversed; judgment for defenders.
Legal Topics
Slander, Libel, Reparation, Defamatory Meaning, Innuendo, Publication of Court Records
Defamation Media Law Tort Law Slander Libel Reparation Defamatory Meaning Innuendo +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Russell

Pursuer/respondent

Stubbs Limited

Defender/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (action for Slander/libel) / House of Lords Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the erroneous publication of a decree in absence against the pursuer in a trade gazette is capable of bearing the defamatory innuendo that the pursuer was unable to pay his debts.
  2. 2 Whether the statement, read with its explanatory note, is capable in law of the defamatory meaning ascribed by the pursuer.

Ratio Decidendi

The publication, when read with its explicit explanatory note, is not capable in law of bearing the defamatory meaning that the pursuer was unable to pay his debts; the innuendo proposed by the pursuer is not a reasonable, natural, or necessary inference from the words used. Therefore, the issue should not be allowed to go to a jury, and judgment must be entered for the defenders.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; interlocutors reversed; judgment for defenders.

Orders

  • Interlocutors of the Court below reversed.
  • Action dismissed.