Byrne v Deane [1937] 1 KB 818
Libel; notice on club’s wall; words capable of defamatory meaning
(329 words)
Facts
The claimant was golf club member, while the defendants were the proprietors and the secretary of the club. By a rule of the club, members were asked not to put any notices or placards in the club’s premises without the secretary’s consent. In the meantime, the defendants had some automatic gambling machines on the premises for the exclusive use of club members. The presence of the gambling machines was notified to the police and the machines have consequently been removed. The day after the removal of the machines, somebody put a notice of the club’s wall containing the following typewritten verse: “For many years upon this spot/You heard the sound of a merry bell/Those who were rash and those who were not/Lost and made a spot of cash/But he who gave the game away/May he b[ur]n in hell and rue the day.” The claimant brought a libel action, alleging that the defendant put up the notice that concerned him. He saw the verse as meaning that he had reported the machines to the police and was thus disloyal to other club members.
Issues
The trial judge found in favour of the claimant, stating that the words were defamatory and given the defendants’ complete control over the club’s walls, they could have easily removed the paper but refused to do so, thereby offering their approval. The defendants appealed.
Decision/Outcome
The Court of Appeal reversed the trial judge’s decision (albeit with one of the three judges dissenting). It held that the words of the verse could not constitute defamation. Merely alleging that someone started a proper procedure for preventing/suppressing crime (here, illegal gambling) could not prima facie be defamatory. Furthermore, Slesser LJ stated there was no evidence that any of the defendants – apart from the secretary – had anything to do with the verse’s publication. Greere LJ, dissenting, found that the verse was defamatory and that by leaving the verse on the wall, the defendants participated in the commission of libel.
Updated 19 March 2026
This case summary accurately reflects the decision in Byrne v Deane [1937] 1 KB 818. The core legal principle — that words are not defamatory if they merely allege that a person reported unlawful activity to the authorities, because right-thinking members of society would not think less of someone for doing so — remains good law and continues to be cited in defamation cases and academic commentary.
Readers should note that the law of defamation in England and Wales has been significantly reformed by the Defamation Act 2013, which introduced a serious harm threshold (s.1), new statutory defences, and other changes. However, the 2013 Act does not alter the foundational common law test for whether words are capable of bearing a defamatory meaning, which is what Byrne v Deane addresses. The case therefore retains its authority on that point. The article is accurate as a statement of the case and its ratio, though students should read it alongside the Defamation Act 2013 for a complete picture of modern defamation law.
