Defamation — MCQs

All questions with answers and explanations

Read the full set here, or use the practice card above to test yourself one question at a time.

1. Which test, laid down in Sim v Stretch (1936), is now used to determine whether a statement is defamatory?

   • Whether the words exposed the plaintiff to hatred, ridicule or contempt
   • Whether the words would tend to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally (correct answer)
   • Whether the words caused actual pecuniary loss to the plaintiff
   • Whether the words were published with malicious intent

   Explanation. Lord Atkin in Sim v Stretch formulated the modern test: whether the words tend to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally, replacing the older, narrower 'hatred, ridicule or contempt' test.

2. What is the essential difference between libel and slander?

   • Libel requires malice; slander does not
   • Libel is in a permanent, visible form; slander is in a transient, spoken form (correct answer)
   • Libel is a criminal offence only; slander is a civil wrong only
   • Libel requires proof of special damage; slander does not

   Explanation. Libel is defamation in a permanent form (writing, print, pictures), while slander is defamation in a transient form (spoken words or gestures) — the traditional distinction turns on the form, not the content.

3. A newspaper publishes a false, defamatory report about a shopkeeper, honestly believing it to be true. In a civil claim for defamation:

   • Honest belief in the truth is a complete defence
   • Honest belief is no defence, and the defendant must prove the truth (correct answer)
   • The claim fails unless the shopkeeper proves special damage
   • The claim fails because the report was not malicious

   Explanation. Defamation protects reputation, so an honest belief that the statement is true is not a defence if it is false. Malice matters in other ways: it defeats fair comment and qualified privilege, and it raises damages.

4. Which of the following is an essential ingredient of the tort of defamation?

   • The statement must be published to a third party (correct answer)
   • The statement must be made with fraudulent intent
   • The plaintiff must prove pecuniary loss in every case
   • The statement must be made in writing

   Explanation. Publication to a third party (someone other than the plaintiff) is essential — a defamatory statement communicated only to the plaintiff themselves is not actionable as defamation.

5. What is 'innuendo' in the law of defamation?

   • A defence available to the defendant
   • A statement that is defamatory on its face without any special meaning
   • A statement that appears innocent on its face but conveys a defamatory meaning to persons with special knowledge of extrinsic facts (correct answer)
   • The plaintiff's demand for an apology before filing suit

   Explanation. Innuendo refers to a statement that seems harmless in its ordinary sense but is understood as defamatory by readers/listeners who know additional facts giving it a hidden defamatory meaning.

6. Which of the following is a recognised defence to a defamation claim?

   • Ignorance that the statement was false
   • Justification (truth) (correct answer)
   • Consent of a third party
   • Payment of compensation before publication

   Explanation. Justification, or truth, is a complete defence to defamation — if the statement is substantially true, no action lies, however damaging the statement may be to the plaintiff's reputation.

7. Absolute privilege as a defence to defamation typically applies to

   • Statements made by any private citizen in casual conversation
   • Statements made in the course of parliamentary or judicial proceedings (correct answer)
   • Statements published in a newspaper after fact-checking
   • Statements made between spouses

   Explanation. Absolute privilege protects statements made in Parliament, in judicial proceedings, and in certain other official contexts, providing complete immunity from a defamation action regardless of malice.

8. Qualified privilege, unlike absolute privilege, is defeated by proof of

   • Truth of the statement
   • Malice on the part of the defendant (correct answer)
   • Lack of publication
   • Consent of the plaintiff

   Explanation. Qualified privilege protects statements made in good faith on occasions of duty or common interest, but the defence is lost if the plaintiff proves the defendant acted with malice.

9. Fair comment as a defence to defamation requires that the comment be

   • A statement of fact, not opinion
   • An honest opinion on a matter of public interest, based on true facts (correct answer)
   • Made only by journalists
   • Approved by the person commented upon

   Explanation. Fair comment protects honestly held opinions (not assertions of fact) on matters of public interest, provided the opinion is based on facts that are true or privileged.

10. A published a false telegram implying B had failed to pay a servant fairly, but the language was ambiguous and only mildly suggestive. Applying Sim v Stretch, B's defamation claim would most likely

    • Succeed automatically since any false statement is defamatory
    • Fail, since a mere mild suggestion, without a clearer imputation, does not meet the threshold of tending to lower B in the estimation of right-thinking members of society (correct answer)
    • Succeed only if B proves special damage
    • Fail because telegrams are not a permanent form of publication

    Explanation. As in Sim v Stretch itself, a mild, ambiguous suggestion of unfair dealing, without a clearer or graver imputation, does not meet the threshold for defamatory meaning.

11. In Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016), the Supreme Court held that criminal defamation is:

    • Unconstitutional
    • A constitutionally valid reasonable restriction on free speech, protecting the right to reputation under Article 21 (correct answer)
    • Valid only for public servants
    • Replaced by civil defamation

    Explanation. The Court upheld criminal defamation, holding reputation is part of Article 21 and the offence is a reasonable restriction under Article 19(2).