1 - Youssoupoff v Metro-Goldwyn- Mayer Pictures Ltd (1934) 50 TLR 581, where the defendants made a film which falsely imputed that the plaintiff had been raped or seduced by Rasputin. The defamatory matter was in pictorial (as opposed to soundtrack) part of the picture and was held as libel. The judge in the case, Slesser Lord Judge referred to a permanent matter capable of being seen by the eye.ORRule:A publications is defamatory if: (1) A reasonable 3rdperson (2) would believe the statement to be defamatory (3) to another identifiable person.2 - Cassidy v Daily Mirror Newspapers Ltd (1929). The defendants published a photograph of a couple, with a caption stating that it was Mr Cassidy and Miss X, whose engagement had just been announced. Mrs C sued for libel, claiming that people who knew them would interpret the article as meaning she was not married to Mr C. The action succeeded.ORCassidy -v- Daily Mirror[1929] 2 KB 3311929CARussell LJ, Scrutton LJDefamationWords which would not otherwise have been defamatory can become so because of circumstances. The intention of the defendant is irrelevant: "Liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamor; but on the fact of defamation."Scrutton LJ said: "I agree with the view expressed arguendo by Sir Montague Smith in the case of Simmons v. Mitchell (1880) 6 App. Cas. 156, 158.: The Judge must decide if the words are reasonably capable of two meanings; if he so decide, the jury must determine which of the two meanings was intended; and by intended I understand that a man is liable for the reasonable inferences to be drawn from the words he used, whether he foresaw them or not."3 - Tolley -v- J S Fry & Sons Ltd; HL 1931Held: The picture was capable of bearing the meanings suggested. The matter should be reheard, but as to the quantum of damages only.4 Newstead v London Express NewspaperHeld (affirming the decision of Hawke J. [1939] 2 KB 317), (1.) that the evidence would have justified a finding by the jury that reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff; and (2.) that, assuming the words complained of were capable of a meaning defamatory of the plaintiff, the fact that they were true of another person did not afford a good defence to the defendants.

5 - In Knupffer v London Express Newspaper Ltd ([1944] AC 116) the House of Lords had held that the leader of a political party of Russian migrs which had some 200 members in total, of whom 24 were in the British branch, had not been defamed by a newspaper article which described the party as "a minute body professing a pure Fascist ideology..."The House of Lords said the test, when a claimant was not named, was whether the words "would reasonably lead persons acquainted with the plaintiff to believe that he was the person referred to".This test, said Mr Justice Tugendhat, was "essentially the same as the test to be applied where the question is whether the words complained of have a particular meaning", which was most recently formulated by Sir Anthony Clarke MR in Jeynes v News Magazines ([2008] EWCA Civ 130)."The policy of the common law has long been to give effect to the right of freedom of expression," Mr Justice Tugendhat went on.

6 Morgan v Odhams Press Ltd

Judgment:Lord Morris of Borth-y-gestruled that even though the plaintiff was never referred to by name, nor was he even directly implicated upon strict reading of the defamatory article, he was still sufficiently identified. This was because a substantial group of people who knew the plaintiff understood that it referred to him. Lord Morris held that this was sufficient, even though no-one called to give evidence in fact believed the allegations to be true.

7 Huth v Huth 1915Held, that there was no evidence of publication by the defendant of the communication, and that therefore the action would not lie.