NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF STUDY AND RESEARCH IN LAW, RANCHI

Project in

LAW OF TORTS

INNUENDO: MEANING AND SCOPE

SUBMITTED TO : SUBIR KUMAR

SUBMITTED BY: RONIT RAMPURIYA

 |

Page 2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would sincerely like to put forward my heartfelt appreciation to the respected Law of Torts professor, Dr.

Subir Kumar for giving me a golden opportunity to take up this project titled Tort of Innuendo. His support

was very valuable and indispensable for the completion of this project. I have tried my best to collect

information about the project in various ways to depict clear picture about the given project topic.
 Page | 3

Abstract

Title: - Law of Innuendo

An innuendo is a statement about something combined with a qualifier about the statement. "Brand X is not
dangerous," therefore, is an innuendo; it can be decomposed into a statement (Brand X is dangerous) and
qualifier (This statement is false). In the series of studies reviewed here, it is found that people are remarkably
insensitive to innuendo qualifiers, basing their impressions instead on innuendo statements. The conditions
under which this phenomenon can promote damage to the reputations of people, organizations, or products,
and the steps that may be effective in avoiding such damage, are the principal concerns of the research
 |

TABLE OF CONTENTS

● Introduction…………………………………………….5-6
● Defamation ……………………………………………7-8
● Meaning of Innuendo………………………………….9
● Cases on Innuendo ……………………………………10-13
● Literal Meaning of Innuendo………………………….14
● Conclusion……………………………………………..15
 Page | 5

Introduction

Innuendo is a legal concept that is related to tort and personal injury law. The word is derived from innuere, the
Latin word that means to nod forward. In legal terms, innuendo is used in a lawsuit to describe defamation
from libel or slander. It usually shows that the plaintiff had bad comments made about him and that the
comments were in fact defamatory.

The innuendo is usually just used in actions for slander. An innuendo can be only explanatory of some other
matter expressed. It must also serve to apply the given slander to the precedent matter, white not enlarging,
extending, or changing the idea of the previous words. Innuendo typically refers to a condition where a person
explains a factual situation, yet an incorrect interpretation is derived from it.

Furthermore, the issue to which the innuendo alludes to must always show from the antecedent end of the
indictment or declaration. This is needed when the intent can be mistaken, or when it cannot be obtained from
the slander or libel itself.

If the innuendo enlarges the idea of the words, it can vitiate the indictment or declaration. But if the new matter
stated within an innuendo does not need to support the action, it can be rejected as surplusage.
 |

There are two major types of innuendo. The first is false innuendo. It is a defamatory statement made that has
an implied meaning, so only individuals who have the necessary
 Page | 7

contextual knowledge can appreciate and understand that the comment is defamatory. This
may require some sort of cultural, geographic information.

There is also legal innuendo. While this is not defamatory on its face, a legal innuendo
statement can be defamatory when combined with certain extrinsic or outside
circumstances. This contextual information may cause a statement to be considered
defamatory in a certain jurisdiction while not another.

When looking at legal precedent, strict liability rule is applied to legal innuendo. This is the
standard level of liability that specifies what makes an individually legally responsible.
Strict liability requires imposing liability on a particular party without finding a reason for
the fault, such as tortious intent or negligence. In this situation, the defendant must have
been proved to be responsible and that the torn in question did happen. 1

1 http://defamation.laws.com/innuendo last visited 25 0ct.2015

 Page | 8

Defamation

Any intentional false communication, either written or spoken, that harms a person's
reputation; decreases the respect, regard, or confidence in which a person is held; or induces
disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against a person. 2

Defamation may be a criminal or civil charge. It encompasses both written statements,

known as libel, and spoken statements, called slander.

The term "defamation" is an all-encompassing term that covers any statement that hurts
someone's reputation. If the statement is made in writing and published, the defamation is
called "libel." If the hurtful statement is spoken, the statement is "slander." The government
can't imprison someone for making a defamatory statement since it is not a crime. Instead,
defamation is considered to be a civil wrong, or a tort. A person that has suffered a
defamatory statement may sue the person that made the statement under defamation law.

Elements of Defamation

1. The statement must be published

2. The statement must be defamatory
3. The statement must refer to the plaintiff

Types of Defamation

Slander

2 Dixon v. Holden, (1869) 7 Eq. 488

 Page | 9

The common law origins of defamation lie in the torts of "slander" (harmful statement in a
transient form, especially speech), each of which gives a common law right of action.
"Defamation" is the general term used internationally, and is used in this article where it is
not necessary to distinguish between "slander" and "libel". Libel and slander both require
publication. The fundamental distinction between libel and slander lies solely in the form in
which the defamatory matter is published. If the offending material is published in some
fleeting form, as by spoken words or sounds, sign language, gestures and the like, then this
is slander.

Libel

Libel is defined as defamation by written or printed words, pictures, or in any form other
than by spoken words or gestures. The law of libel originated in the 17th century in
England. With the growth of publication came the growth of libel and development of the
tort of libel.

Meaning of Innuendo

A statement may be prima facie defamatory and that is so when its natural and obvious
meaning leads to that conclusion. Sometimes, the statement may prima facie be innocent
but because of some latent or secondary meaning, it may be considered to be defamatory 3 .

When the natural and ordinary meaning is not defamatory but the plaintiff wants to bring an
action for defamation, he must prove the latent or second meaning, i.e. , the innuendo,
which makes the statement defamatory. Even a statement of commendation may be
defamatory in the context in which it is said. Even “Y is a saint” might be slander if the
statement was understood to refer to a criminal gang known as “The Saints”. 4
 Page | 10

Similarly, to say that X is an honest man and he never stole my watch may be defamatory
statement if the persons to whom statement is made understand from this that X is a
dishonest man having stolen the watch. The statement that a lady has given birth to a child
is defamatory when the lady is unmarried. Similarly, the statement that A is like his father
may be defamatory if it is likely to convey the impression that he is a ‘cheat’ like his father.

3
4 Dr. R.K. Bangia, Law of Torts, 23James : General Principles of Law of Torts, 2rd ed., p.152nd ed., p.260
 Page | 11

Cases on Innuendo

The Capital and Counties Bank Limited -v- George Henty & Sons; HL
18823

The defendant wrote to their customers saying ‘Henty & Sons hereby give notice that they
will not receive in payment cheques drawn on any of the branches of the Capital and
Counties Bank.’ The contents of the circular became known and there was a run on the
bank.
The bank claimed they had been defamed.

Held: The plaintiff’s appeal failed. In their natural meaning the words were not capable in
law of being defamatory. Lord Selborne LC said: ‘The test, according to the authorities, is,
whether under the circumstances in which the writing was published, reasonable men, to
whom the publication was made, would be likely to understand it in a libellous sense.’ It
was held that there was no case to go to the jury.

V. Subair v. P.K. Sudhakaran4

The Courts below, concurrently found the petitioner guilty of the offence punishable Under
Section 501, I.P.C . and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 300/-, in default to undergo
simple imprisonment for 3 months, The petitioner is the Editor, Printer and Publisher of a
daily, 'Al Ameen'. The issue of the newspaper dt. 25-8-78 carried a reportfrom Chokly (Ext.
Pl(a)), that a young lady of the locality consulted a local medical practitioner for an ailment
of her child, and that the physician wanted to examine her. Despite her protestations that
she was in no need for medical attention, and had no money to pay for the same, she was
persuaded to submit to a clinical examination. It turned to be such, that the woman had to
flee from the physician to save her honour. The report goes on to say, that the medical
practitioner, who was rendering free treatment on Saturdays had a weakness for comely

3 (1882) 7 App Cas 741

4 1987 CriLJ 736
 Page | 12

woman and that as a result of his attentions, a woman patient was put to the necessity of an
abortion.

Board Of Directors, Y.M.C.A. And ... vs R.H. Niblett 7

The circular became known to other persons; there was run on the bank and loss inflicted.
The bank having brought an action against H. & Sons for libel, with an innuendo that the
circular imputed insolvency. It was held that:
"In their natural meaning the words were not libellous: that the inference suggested by the
innuendo was not the inference which reasonable persons would draw; that the onus lay on
the bank to show that the circular had a libellous tendency; that the evidence, consisting of
the circumstances attending the publication, failed to show it; that there was no case to go to
the jury; and that the defendants were entitled to judgment".

Fox v Boulter8

Facts

The Claimant, an MP and formerly the Secretary of State for Defence, complained that the
Defendant, a British businessman, defamed him by an interview he gave to the broadcaster
Sky. The Claimant sued in respect of a broadcast of the interview on Sky News (“the
broadcast”) and the Defendant’s words as contained in a website posting at Sky News’
website (“the website article”). The broadcast contained part only of the remarks attributed
to the Defendant in the interview than the website article.
The Claimant complained that the defamatory meaning of the broadcast and the website
article was:
“…that reprehensibly and dishonourably, although he was uniquely in a position to do so,
the Claimant had failed to speak out with the truth in order to debunk the supposedly
baseless Allegations made publicly against the Defendant, the gravity and discredit of
which omission was reflected by the fact that, if the Claimant did not attend court
voluntarily in the United States to exonerate the Defendant, then the Claimant would be
compelled by legal process to attend.”
 Page | 13

7
8 AIR 1957 All 219
[2013] EWHC 1435 (QB)
The Claimant argued that that was the natural and ordinary meaning of the interview as it
was given, particularly in the light of the general knowledge concerning the allegations
made against the Defendant at the time, but additionally such a meaning arose by way of
innuendo at least in the minds of interested readers who had been following the allegations
made against the Defendant.
The Defendant argued that the words complained of bore no defamatory meaning,
alternatively any defamatory meaning failed to pass the test for a threshold of seriousness as
set out in Thornton v Telegraph Media Group Ltd [2011] 1 WLR 1985. Evidence was not
admissible in relation to the determination of the natural and ordinary meaning. If the
Claimant needed to establish, by evidence, knowledge of particular readers, then that had to
be done by proof of the innuendo meaning; it could not be done through so-called “general
knowledge” to support a natural and ordinary meaning.

Held

(1) The broadcast was very short and did not convey any defamatory meaning. The
Claimant’s claim in relation to the broadcast was dismissed.
(2) In assessing a natural and ordinary meaning, no evidence was admissible. “General
knowledge”, were it to be relied upon, had to be in the category of what Lord
Mansfield CJ in R v Horne [1775-1802] All ER Rep 390 at 393E called “matters of
universal notoriety”, that is to say matters which any intelligent viewer or reader may
be expected to know. Anything which required assiduous reading and a good memory
so as to recall the facts of a story dating back several weeks or months cannot fall
within that definition. Such knowledge of individual readers would have to be
established – if it could – by evidence to support an innuendo claim.
(3) The natural and ordinary meaning of the website article was:
“… that the Claimant was in a position to give evidence to debunk the baseless allegations
made publicly against the Defendant but had not done so; that although Dr Fox had
previously said that he was willing to do so, Mr Boulter doubted it; and that if the Claimant
 Page | 14

did not attend court voluntarily in the United States to exonerate the Defendant, then he
would be forced to do so by legal process.
(4) This meaning was sufficiently serious to qualify as defamatory under Thornton.
(5) Readers of the website publication with a more detailed knowledge of the allegations
that had been made against the Defendant, as set out by the Claimant’s case on
innuendo, the conclusion as to the defamatory nature of the website publication was
reinforced.
(6) A claimant cannot rely on post-publication facts to support an innuendo meaning:
Grappelli v Derek Block Holdings Ltd [1977] 1 WLR 822 applied.

Literal Meaning of Innuendo

Innuendo is an indirect intimation about a person or thing, especially of a disparaging or a

derogatory nature.

An innuendo is an insinuation or intimation about a person or thing, especially of a

disparaging or a derogatory nature. It can also be a remark or question, typically

disparaging (also called insinuation), that works obliquely by allusion . In the latter sense

the intention is often to insult or accuse someone in such a way that one's words, taken

literally, are innocent. According to the Advanced Oxford Learner's Dictionary, an

innuendo is "an indirect remark about somebody or something, usually suggesting

something bad, mean or rude", such as:

 Page | 15

"innuendos about her private life" or "The song is full of sexual innuendo".

The term sexual innuendo has acquired a specific meaning, namely that of a "risqué" double
entendre by playing on a possibly sexual interpretation of an otherwise innocent uttering.
For example: "We need to go deeper" can be seen as either a request for further inquiry, or

a request to go deeper into an intimate part .

Conclusion

This Latin word (commonly translated "meaning") was the technical beginning of that

clause iu a declaration or indictment for slander or libel in which the meaning of the alleged

libelous words was explained, or the application of the language charged to the plaintiff was

pointed out. Hence it gave its name to the whole clause; and this usage is still retained,

although an equivalent English word is now substituted. Thus, it may be charged that the

defendant said "he (meaning the said plaintiff) is a perjurer." The word is also used, (though

more rarely,) in other species of pleadings, to introduce an explanation of a preceding word,

charge, or averment. It is said to mean no more than the words.