1. A newspaper published a photograph of Mr.

C and Miss X with the caption,

Mr. C and Miss X whose engagement has been announced. These words
were completely innocent on their face but were held to be defamatory since
persons who knew that she had been living with Mr. C might believe that she
was not Mr. Cs wife and had been immorally cohabiting with him.
Cassidy v. Daily Mirror Newspaper Ltd [1929] 2 KB 331===
2. The words appear innocent on their face but are seen to be defamatory
because of some special facts or circumstances not set out in the words
themselves, but known to persons to whom the words were published.
True (Legal) Innuendo===
3. A defamatory inference that reasonable persons might draw from the words
themselves independent of any knowledge of any special facts or
circumstances.
False (Popular) Innuendo===
4. D published that P, an RM, was involved in a drug investigation but had not
accepted any payoffs. The article clearly said P had not taken any bribes so
the reasonable man would have no reason to think so.
Bonaby v. Nassau Guardian (1985) Supreme Court of Bahamas===
5. The Gleaner published an article about questionable contracts made by a
Company of which the Claimant was Managing Director. The article stated
that the "Claimant was dismissed after the 2nd contract was agreed. The
Claimant contended that the words were understood to mean that he was
dismissed because of questionable contracts. The court agreed with him that
the ordinary man would draw such a conclusion.
Bonnick v Morris & the Gleaner {2002} ===
6. This person is not nave and he can read between the lines but is not unduly
suspicious and is not avid for a scandal. He will not therefore select one bad
meaning where other non-defamatory meanings are available.
The ordinary reasonable reader/man======
7. The court should give the words the ______________ meaning it would have
conveyed to the ordinary reasonable reader reading the article once.
Natural and ordinary======
8. A defendant is not responsible for the statements made by third parties
unless he has expressly or impliedly________________.
adopted them
as his own=======

9. The words must refer to the plaintiff

It is sufficient for liability if: ________________________
1)
The plaintiff is referred to by his initials or nickname or
2)
If he is depicted in a cartoon, photograph, or verbal
description or
3)
If he is identified by his office or post
4)
If a particular group of which he/she is a member is
mentioned==
10.According to Willes J in ____________ (1858) 175 ER 758 if a man wrote that
all lawyers were thieves, no particular lawyer could sue him unless there was
something to point to the particular individual. Eastwood v. Holmes==
11.According to Lord Atkin in _________________ [1944] A.C. 166,122-The reason
why defamatory words published of a large or indeterminate number of
persons described by some general name generally fails to be actionable is
the difficulty of establishing that the plaintiff was in fact included in the
defamatory statement, for the habit of making unfounded generalisations is
ingrained in ill-educated or vulgar minds or the words are occasionally
intended to be facetious exaggeration. Knupffer v.London Express
Newspaper====
12.In ______________ (1913) 47 Ir LT 266 it was held that where comments of an
alleged defamatory character were made upon an association called the
Ancient Order of Hibernians, an individual member of the order who was not
named or in any way referred to could not maintain an action for defamation.
OBrian v.Eason===
13.In ____________ however a newspaper article stated that in Queenstown
instructions were issued by the Roman Catholic religious authorities that all
Protestant shop assistants were to be discharged; and where seven plaintiffs
claimed that they were the sole persons who exercised religious authority in
name and on behalf of the Roman Catholic church in Queenstown, it was held
that they were entitled to sue for defamation being individually defamed.
Brown v. Thompson===
14.An individual member of a class or group of persons of whom defamatory
words are spoken can sue if:
a) The class is so small or so completely ascertainable that what is
said of the class is necessarily said of every member of it or
b) The individual member can show that he was particularly pointed
out==
15.
In every case where the plaintiff is not named the test whether the
words used refer to him is the question: whether the words were such as

would reasonably lead persons acquainted with the plaintiff to

believe that he was the person referred to.===
16.In deciding the question the size of the class, the generality of the charge and
the __________ of the accusation may all be elements to be taken into
account. Extravagance=====
17.At common law it is __________ to an action for defamation that the Defendant
did not intend to defame the plaintiff. The ________of the defendant was
irrelevant to the issue of liability. no defence, intention==
18.The Defamation Act, 2013 of Jamaica section ________ has provided a
defence in cases of unintentional defamation. 22===
19.

True===
20.What legislation was replaced by the Defamation Act 2013.
Libel and Slander Act====
21.Barbados & Jamaica have abolished the differentiation between these: Libel
& Slander===
22.In Jamaica the tort of defamation is actionable per se. True====
23.What section of the Defamation Act abolished the requirement to show proof
of damage? Section 9====
24.Defamation may be unintentional with regard to
i)
Reference to the plaintiff (Hulton v. Jones; Newstead v. London
Express Newspaper Limited) or==
25.
ii)
With regard to knowledge of facts which make a
statement which is innocent on its face, defamatory of the plaintiff
(the legal innuendo) Cassidy v Daily Mirror Newspaper Limited====