Knuppfer v London Express Newspaper Ltd [1944] UKHL 1; [1944] AC 116
Action by individual member regarding libel on a class
Facts
Knuppfer (K) was the head of the British branch of the Young Russia Party. The respondents published a newspaper article in 1941 which alleged association between Hitler and the Party. The article referred to the movement in France and the United States, without mentioning Britain. Whilst K was not named individually in the article, witnesses at trial intimated that they understood the article as referring to K. K was successful in his libel claim at trial.
Issues
The Court of Appeal held that the words could not be regarded as referring to K and allowed the newspaper’s appeal. K appealed to the House of Lords. On appeal, K submitted that when a defamatory statement is made of a class of persons, an individual suit can be raised by those members of the class capable of being defamed by the statement. K submitted that the article particularly reflected upon him as a prominent member of the group in Britain.
Law Teacher writing support
Writing a law essay?
We choose a writer who is an expert in your area of law and qualified to at least the academic level you select. Most of our writers hold a master’s degree or PhD, have teaching experience, or both.
Send us your question and, if you wish, any marking criteria. We’ll write an essay to your instructions.
Decision/Outcome
The House of Lords noted that it is an essential element of defamation that the words complained of should be published “of the plaintiff.” Viscount Simon held that the article, having regard to its language, could not be regarded, as a question of law, as being capable of referring to K. The trial judge had erroneously treated the witnesses’ association of the article with K as sufficient, without first deciding whether the words were reasonably capable of referring to him. Knowing him as the leading British member did not establish that the article pointed to him individually. Similarly, Lord Atkin held that in libel cases the key question was whether the words were published “of the plaintiff” as an individual rather than whether they were spoken of a class. The appeal was therefore dismissed.
