Powered by Lexis+®
Jurisdiction(s):
United Kingdom
Related Content
CASE STUDY

“LexisNexis is great as I can find the answers I am looking for really quickly. I believe that nothing should be more than 6 clicks away - and the products from LexisNexis deliver on this standard”

Avensure

Access all documents on Innuendo

Innuendo meaning

What does Innuendo mean?
Innuendo, in defamation (libel and slander), describes a defamatory meaning conveyed by implication. It is used in two ways. First, a true innuendo arises where the defamatory sting depends on extrinsic facts known to some recipients; the statement looks harmless on its face but is defamatory to readers with that special knowledge. Secondly, some use innuendo loosely to mean an implied or secondary meaning apparent to the ordinary reasonable reader without special knowledge; courts now treat that as the natural and ordinary meaning rather than an innuendo in the strict sense. A true innuendo must be specifically pleaded and proved. The claimant must identify the extrinsic facts, the class of publishees who knew them at the time of publication, how those facts render the words defamatory, and that at least one publishee did so understand them (illustrated by cases such as Cassidy v Daily Mirror and Tolley v J S Fry). This is a case-law concept rather than a statutory definition and is applied in broadly consistent terms across England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Ireland. Parties must set out the precise meaning relied on in their pleadings.
Speed up all aspects of your legal work with tools that help you to work faster and smarter. Win cases, close deals and grow your business–all whilst saving time and reducing risk.

View the related News about Innuendo

NEWS
High Court (England and Wales) determines natural and innuendo meanings of CQC/DBS emails and referral in Rochester v Ingham House [2019] EWHC 847 (QB)

Rochester v Ingham House Ltd [2019] EWHC 847 (QB) Background Ingham House, run by the defendant company, is a residential care facility delivering support to older adults. Mrs Rochester (the claimant) was hired as a team leader at Ingham House and completed four shifts. According to the claimant, she voiced worries about the state of affairs at Ingham House and, during a discussion with the Deputy Manager, left her post with immediate effect. The defendant contends that the Deputy Manager challenged the claimant’s role in handing out medicines to residents and that, although she appeared to resign in that exchange, she was actually dismissed. The claimant reported matters concerning Ingham House to the CQC and informed the defendant of doing so. She asserts the defendant then emailed the CQC and referred her to the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) in a bid to undermine her account. The defamation claim centres on three communications: an email from the Deputy Manager to the CQC replying to the...

Read More Right Arrow