Cassidy v Daily Mirror Newspapers Ltd [1929] 2 KB 331

Facts

  • Mr. Cassidy, who was married, brought a defamation claim against the Daily Mirror newspaper.
  • The Daily Mirror published a photograph of Mr. Cassidy with a woman, Miss X, captioned to state they were engaged.
  • To the general public, the statement appeared harmless.
  • For individuals who knew Mr. Cassidy was married, the publication implied he was engaging in an extramarital affair.
  • The defamatory meaning did not arise from the statement itself but from the extrinsic fact of Cassidy’s marital status known to certain readers.
  • The claim focused on whether the newspaper could be liable for defamation where the alleged defamatory meaning arose from external facts not stated in the publication.

Issues

  1. Whether a publisher can be held liable for defamation when the defamatory meaning derives from extrinsic facts known only to some readers (true innuendo).
  2. Whether the harm to reputation in such cases can be considered reasonably foreseeable by the defendant.
  3. Whether the test for defamation should be based solely on the literal meaning of the publication or also account for context and audience knowledge.

Decision

  • The court found that the newspaper’s publication was defamatory due to its implication, when combined with the extrinsic fact of Mr. Cassidy’s marriage.
  • It held that a publisher is liable for defamation if a statement, together with external knowledge, reasonably leads some readers to believe the plaintiff’s reputation is harmed.
  • The court determined that the test for defamation includes consideration of how right-thinking members of society with relevant knowledge would interpret the publication.

Legal Principles

  • True innuendo arises where a statement, though not defamatory on its face, acquires a defamatory meaning due to extrinsic facts known to a specific audience.
  • The objective test for defamation considers whether the statement, in its full context, would lower the plaintiff’s reputation in the eyes of reasonable people.
  • Publishers are liable for the foreseeable consequences of statements, including implications created by facts known to a portion of the audience.
  • The distinction is drawn between true innuendo (requiring extrinsic facts) and false innuendo (defamatory meaning contained within the words alone).

Conclusion

Cassidy v Daily Mirror Newspapers Ltd confirmed that liability for defamation extends to statements which become defamatory through external facts known to some readers, establishing true innuendo as a doctrinal basis for publisher responsibility in English defamation law.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal