E Hulton & Co v Jones [1910] AC 20

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.

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