## Facts

- The claimant previously employed a housemaid who later joined the defendant’s service.
- Upon the maid’s return to the defendant, the defendant sent a telegram to the claimant stating: “E. has resumed her service with us today. Please send her possessions and the money you borrowed, also her wages to […].”
- The claimant alleged that the telegram implied he was financially irresponsible, had borrowed money, failed to pay wages, and was untrustworthy.
- The defendant contended that the words were not defamatory, either in their plain meaning or by innuendo.
- The dispute focused on whether the telegram was capable of being defamatory, leading to proceedings before the House of Lords.

## Issues

1. Whether the words in the telegram, in their ordinary signification, were capable of bearing a defamatory meaning.
2. Whether a defamatory meaning could be inferred by innuendo given the context and possible additional knowledge.
3. What standard should be applied to determine when words are defamatory in law.

## Decision

- The House of Lords held that the telegram, when interpreted by its ordinary meaning, was not defamatory.
- The court found that the words did not reasonably imply poor financial management or untrustworthiness on the part of the claimant.
- No defamatory meaning by innuendo was established, as the telegram was not defamatory even with additional contextual knowledge.
- The judge’s role is to decide if words are capable of being defamatory; if not, the case is dismissed without going to the jury.

## Legal Principles

- The test for defamation is whether words “would tend to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally.”
- Defamation must be assessed by the objective standard of an ordinary, reasonable person, not by strained or subjective interpretations.
- The court reaffirmed the distinction between the judge’s legal threshold function (whether words are capable of being defamatory) and the jury’s factual assessment function (whether, in context, words are actually defamatory).
- Defamation by innuendo requires proof of additional facts known to the recipient that transform the meaning into a defamatory one; such proof was lacking in this case.

## Conclusion

Sim v Stretch established that for words to be defamatory they must, in their ordinary sense, lower the claimant in the eyes of right-thinking members of society. The House of Lords found the telegram was not defamatory, clarifying the threshold test and the respective roles of judge and jury in defamation claims.

Sim v Stretch [1936] 2 All ER 1237