## Facts

- Bottomley alleged that a magazine sold to the public contained defamatory statements about him.
- F.W. Woolworth & Co. Ltd sold the magazine in the ordinary course of its retail business.
- Woolworth was sued as a disseminator/vendor rather than as the author, editor, or printer of the publication.
- There was no evidence Woolworth or its staff had read the magazine or knew of the defamatory material.
- There was no evidence of circumstances that should reasonably have put Woolworth on notice that the magazine contained libel.

## Issues

1. Whether a retailer/bookseller that merely sells a publication in the ordinary course of business, without knowledge or reason to suspect defamatory content, is liable in defamation for libel contained in that publication.

## Decision

- The King’s Bench Division held Woolworth was not liable for the alleged libel.
- The court treated Woolworth as a secondary distributor, not an originator of the defamatory matter.
- Liability was denied because Woolworth lacked knowledge of the libel and lacked any reason to suspect its presence.
- The court indicated that distributor liability could arise if the seller knows, or has reason to know, that the material is defamatory and continues dissemination.

## Legal Principles

- A bookseller or distributor is generally not liable for defamatory matter in publications sold where the seller had no knowledge of the defamatory content and no reason, from the circumstances, to suspect it.
- A distributor’s protection is conditional: knowledge, notice, or circumstances indicating a clear risk of libel can make the distributor liable as a publisher.
- The reasonableness of imposing screening duties on mass retailers is relevant to whether the distributor should be treated as legally at fault.

## Conclusion

The court denied defamation liability for a retailer that merely sold a magazine containing libel where the retailer lacked knowledge and any reason to suspect the defamatory content, while leaving open liability where a distributor knows or should know of the libel and continues to distribute it.


Bottomley v. F.W. Woolworth & Co. Ltd., 48 T.L.R. 521 (K.B. 1932)