## Facts

- Mrs. Cassidy was the lawful wife of Mr. Cassidy (also known as Mr. Corrigan), though the spouses lived separately; he often visited her at work and they were known as husband and wife in her social circle.
- A photographer took a photograph of Mr. Cassidy with another woman after he represented that he was engaged to marry her.
- A newspaper published the photograph with a caption stating that “Mr. Corrigan” and the woman (“Miss X”) were engaged to be married.
- Acquaintances of Mrs. Cassidy who knew she was Mr. Cassidy’s wife read the publication and understood it to imply that Mrs. Cassidy was not his lawful wife and was cohabiting immorally.
- Mrs. Cassidy sued for libel, alleging the publication imputed unchastity and damaged her reputation.

## Issues

1. Whether a publication that is facially innocent can be defamatory by innuendo when extrinsic facts known to some readers lead them to identify the plaintiff and draw a defamatory implication.
2. Whether a publisher avoids liability for libel where it lacked intent to defame and did not know the plaintiff or the extrinsic facts that make the statement defamatory.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal dismissed the newspaper’s appeal and affirmed judgment for Mrs. Cassidy.
- The court held the publication was capable of bearing a defamatory meaning toward Mrs. Cassidy in light of the extrinsic facts known to relevant readers.
- The court held liability did not depend on the newspaper’s intent or knowledge of the plaintiff; it turned on the defamatory meaning reasonably conveyed in context.
- The court left undisturbed the jury’s finding that readers who knew the circumstances understood the publication as reflecting on Mrs. Cassidy’s moral character.

## Legal Principles

- A statement may be libelous by innuendo where extrinsic facts known to readers give it a secondary meaning that harms the plaintiff’s reputation, even if the plaintiff is not named.
- Identification is sufficient if reasonable readers with the relevant background knowledge would understand the publication to refer to the plaintiff.
- Defamatory meaning is assessed by an objective standard: how the reasonable, right-thinking reader with the relevant contextual knowledge would understand the words.
- In libel, lack of intent to defame and lack of knowledge of the plaintiff or the contextual facts are not defenses if the publication, in the circumstances of its circulation, conveys a defamatory meaning.
- The judge decides whether words are capable of a defamatory meaning; the jury decides whether they were in fact understood in that defamatory sense on the evidence.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeal upheld liability for libel because the engagement announcement, though not mentioning Mrs. Cassidy, conveyed to reasonable readers who knew she was Mr. Cassidy’s wife a defamatory implication about her marital status and chastity, and the newspaper’s lack of intent or knowledge did not excuse publication of a defamatory meaning.


Cassidy v. Daily Mirror Newspapers, Ltd., [1929] 2 K.B. 331 (Ct. App. 1929)