## Facts

- Broadway Approvals Ltd operated a mail-order stamp business; George Henry Santo was its managing director.
- An 11-year-old boy ordered an inexpensive packet of stamps after seeing an advertisement.
- The company sent an additional, more expensive packet “on approval” that the boy had not requested.
- When the approval packet was not paid for or returned, the company sent escalating reminder and “final notice” forms asserting the approvals were sent at the customer’s request and demanding payment or return.
- The boy’s mother complained to a Sunday newspaper, which investigated and interviewed the boy, his parents, and Santo.
- The newspaper published a feature portraying the company’s approach to child stamp-collectors as morally discreditable and oppressive, implying sharp practice toward children and parents.

## Issues

1. Whether the defendants could establish justification or fair comment given the jury’s findings about the defamatory sting and the underlying facts.
2. Whether there was evidence supporting a finding of malice sufficient to defeat defences such as fair comment.
3. Whether damages, including any exemplary component, were permissible and properly constrained under the governing limits for exemplary awards.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal dismissed the defendants’ appeal and upheld judgment for the plaintiffs.
- It accepted the jury’s determination that the publication conveyed an imputation of morally discreditable conduct and that this sting was not substantially true.
- It upheld the jury’s finding of malice as supportable on the evidence, defeating fair comment and related defences.
- It confirmed that exemplary damages may be available against newspapers where publication is calculated for profit in deliberate disregard of the claimant’s rights, but only within strict bounds; it scrutinized the award to ensure conformity with those limits.

## Legal Principles

- A defamatory publication is assessed as a whole by the standard of the ordinary, reasonable reader; the “sting” may be a broader imputation about a claimant’s system or conduct, not merely a single incident.
- Fair comment requires (i) facts that are true or substantially true and (ii) an honestly held opinion not tainted by malice; a finding of malice defeats the defence.
- Justification fails if the defamatory sting found by the trier of fact is not substantially true.
- Malice may be inferred where a publisher goes beyond what the facts fairly support, ignores or discounts exculpatory explanations, or pursues an improper dominant motive (such as hostility or sensationalism) rather than a genuine public-interest purpose.
- Exemplary damages in defamation may be awarded in the profit-motive category where the defendant calculated that gains from wrongdoing would exceed likely compensation, but the award must be controlled to avoid an unprincipled windfall.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeal upheld libel liability because the jury found the article’s core imputation was not substantially true and was published with malice, defeating fair comment and justification; it also confirmed that exemplary damages can be available against profit-driven newspaper libels when tightly constrained by governing limits.


Broadway Approvals Ltd. v. Odhams Press Ltd., [1965] 1 W.L.R. 805 (Eng. C.A.)