Were the words defamatory in this case?

No. The court held the telegram’s words were not capable of a defamatory meaning on their face or by innuendo.

Is every unpleasant statement defamatory?

No. The law of defamation protects reputation against statements that cause real lowering in society’s eyes, not mere annoyance or insult.

Does context matter for defamatory meaning?

Yes. Words are read as ordinary people would read them, in their setting. Only then is the libel test applied.

Sim v. Stretch

Q: What is the Sim v. Stretch libel test?

Whether the words would tend to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally.

Sim v. Stretch (1936) — Libel Test

Tort — Defamation (Libel) [1936] 2 All ER 1237 1936 (decision), Published: 31 Oct 2025 King’s Bench Gulzar Hashmi ~5 min read

PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: libel test, defamation, reputation SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: right-thinking society, innuendo, telegram statement

Quick Summary

A telegram said the housemaid had resumed work with the defendant and asked for her belongings, wages, and “money you borrowed.” The plaintiff claimed this implied he was in financial trouble and untrustworthy. The court held the words were not capable of a defamatory meaning. This case states the modern libel test: would the words lower the plaintiff in the eyes of right-thinking members of society?

Citation: Sim v Stretch [1936] 2 All ER 1237

Issues

Can the defendant’s words amount to libel?

Rules

Words are defamatory if they would lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally.

Assessment is by the ordinary reader, in context, not by extreme or overly sensitive views.

Facts (Timeline)

Timeline: housemaid engagement, telegram sent, claim of defamation

Plaintiff had a housemaid for a limited time; she allegedly moved to the defendant’s employment.

Defendant sent a telegram: “Edith has resumed her service with us today. Please send her possessions and the money you borrowed, also her wages…”

Plaintiff claimed the words implied financial difficulty, borrowing from a servant, and non-payment of wages.

Action for defamation (libel) was brought; defense argued the words were not defamatory as a matter of law.

Arguments

Plaintiff

Telegram suggested he was unreliable with money.
Implied borrowing from a servant and unpaid wages—lowering status.

Defendant

Words, read normally, do not suggest serious moral or social discredit.
No defamatory meaning on their face or by innuendo.

Judgment

The court held that the words were not defamatory. They were not capable of the meaning alleged—neither directly nor by implied innuendo.

The test is whether right-thinking people would think less of the plaintiff because of the words.

Ratio

Defamatory meaning requires a statement that would make ordinary, fair-minded people think worse of the plaintiff. Mere embarrassment or unflattering comment is insufficient. On the facts, the telegram did not cross that threshold.

Why It Matters

Sets the modern libel test used in many jurisdictions.
Shows courts filter out claims where words are not capable of defamatory meaning.
Helps separate reputation harm from mere rudeness or slight.

Key Takeaways

Right-thinking society is the benchmark audience.
Capability of defamation is a threshold question for the court.
Mere insult or inconvenience is not enough.
Context and the ordinary meaning of words matter.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “LOWER? LOOK. LISTEN.”

LOWER? Would society think worse of the plaintiff?
LOOK at ordinary meaning and context.
LISTEN for innuendo—if any—still seen by ordinary readers.

IRAC Outline

Issue

Do the telegram’s words amount to libel against the plaintiff?

Rule

Words are defamatory if they lower the plaintiff in the eyes of right-thinking people.

Application

Read naturally, the words do not accuse dishonesty or serious discredit; they request wages and belongings.

Conclusion

Not defamatory; claim fails.

Glossary

Libel: Written or published defamation that harms a person’s reputation.
Innuendo: An indirect meaning that arises from context known to readers.
Defamatory Meaning: A meaning that would make ordinary people think worse of the person.