Scott v Sampson (1882) 8 QBD 491

Facts

• Scott, the plaintiff, brought a defamation action against Sampson, alleging that published statements harmed his reputation.
• Sampson, the defendant, sought to introduce evidence of Scott's general bad reputation to reduce the damages, arguing any harm from the defamatory statements was minimal due to Scott’s existing poor reputation.
• The trial court initially excluded this evidence, but the Court of Queen's Bench reversed the decision, holding that such evidence was relevant to the assessment of actual harm.

Issues

1. Whether evidence of a plaintiff’s general bad reputation is admissible in defamation proceedings to mitigate damages.
2. Whether damages awarded in defamation cases are compensatory or punitive in nature.
3. Whether the scope of admissible reputation evidence should be limited to general reputation, excluding specific acts of misconduct.

Decision

• The Court of Queen's Bench held that evidence of a plaintiff’s general bad reputation is admissible to mitigate damages in defamation claims.
• The court clarified that damages in defamation cases are compensatory and intended to restore the plaintiff to the position they would have been in if the defamation had not occurred.
• The court limited such evidence strictly to general reputation within the community, excluding specific acts or unrelated bad character evidence.

Legal Principles

• Evidence of a plaintiff’s general bad reputation is relevant and admissible solely for the purpose of reducing damages in defamation litigation.
• Damages in defamation cases are compensatory rather than punitive, focused on the actual harm suffered.
• Admissibility of reputation evidence is restricted to general reputation and must be both relevant and proportionate; evidence of specific instances of misconduct is not permitted.

Conclusion

Scott v Sampson established a key precedent in English defamation law by permitting evidence of a plaintiff’s general bad reputation to mitigate damages, reinforcing the compensatory aim of defamation awards and setting limits on the scope of admissible reputation evidence.