## Facts

- E Hulton & Co published a fictional article in the Sunday Chronicle, describing the actions of a character named Artemus Jones, depicted engaging in morally questionable conduct.
- The publisher intended the character to be fictional and did not know of any real person by that name.
- A real individual, Artemus Jones, a barrister, existed and asserted that the article defamed him, as readers reasonably believed it referred to him.
- The publisher contended that there was no intention to identify or defame the real Mr. Jones.
- The court determined the main issue was whether readers could reasonably interpret the statement as referring to the plaintiff, regardless of the publisher's intent.

## Issues

1. Whether a defamatory statement about a fictional character can constitute defamation against a real person with the same name if readers believe it refers to them.
2. Whether the absence of intent to refer to the plaintiff by the publisher precludes liability for defamation.
3. What constitutes identification in defamation law and the relevance of the reasonable reader's viewpoint.

## Decision

- The House of Lords held that liability for defamation can arise even if the reference to the plaintiff was unintentional.
- The court found that it was sufficient that a reasonable person could interpret the statement as referring to the plaintiff.
- The intent or lack thereof by the publisher to identify the plaintiff was deemed irrelevant to liability.
- The court determined that the context of the statement and its reception by others were essential in assessing defamation.

## Legal Principles

- Defamation liability is objective; the publisher's intent does not negate liability if the statement could reasonably be understood to refer to the plaintiff.
- Identification in defamation is based on whether others understand the statement to refer to the plaintiff, not on the publisher's intention.
- Legal analysis centers on the reasonable reader's interpretation of the statement within its context.
- Publishers must exercise caution to prevent unintentional associations with real individuals that might be defamatory.

## Conclusion

E Hulton & Co v Jones established that the absence of intent does not absolve a publisher of liability for defamation if a reasonable person would interpret a statement as referring to a real individual, thereby affirming the objective nature of defamation law and reinforcing protections against reputational harm.


E Hulton & Co v Jones [1910] AC 20