Youssoupoff -v- MGM Pictures (1934) 50 TLR 581
1934
CA
Scrutton LJ, Slesser LJ Defamation, Damages Casemap
1 Cites
1 Citers
The plaintiff (herself a Princess) complained that she could be identified with the character Princess
Natasha in the film "Rasputin, the Mad Monk". On the basis that the film suggested that, by reason
of her identification with "Princess Natasha", she had been seduced by Rasputin, she was awarded
25,000 damages. The defendant contended that if the film indicated any relations between
Rasputin and "Natasha" it indicated a rape of Natasha and not a seduction. Held: In defamation
cases, the setting of the level of damages is for the jury.
Slesser LJ said that defamation could include words which cause a person to be shunned or avoided:
"not only is the matter defamatory if it brings the plaintiff into hatred, ridicule, or contempt by
reason of some moral discredit on [the plaintiff's] part, but also if it tends to make the plaintiff be
shunned and avoided and that without any moral discredit on [the plaintiff's] part. It is for that
reason that persons who have been alleged to have been insane, or be suffering from certain
diseases, and other cases where no direct moral responsibility could be placed upon them, have
been held to be entitled to bring an action to protect their reputation and their honour." and, on the
facts: "One may, I think, take judicial notice of the fact that a lady of whom it has been said that she
has been ravished, albeit against her will, has suffered in social reputation and in opportunities of
receiving respectable consideration from the world." and
"I, for myself, cannot see that from the plaintiff's point of view it matters in the least whether this
libel suggests that she has been seduced or ravished. The question whether she is or is not the more
or the less moral seems to me immaterial in considering this question whether she has been
defamed, and for this reason, that, as has been frequently pointed out in libel, not only is the matter
defamatory if it brings the plaintiff into hatred, ridicule, or contempt by reason of some moral
discredit on her part, but also if tends to make the plaintiff be shunned and avoided and that without
any moral discredit on her part. It is for that reason that persons who have been alleged to have been
insane, or to be suffering from certain diseases, and other cases where no direct moral responsibility
could be placed upon them, have been held to be entitled to bring an action to protect their
reputation and their honour." and
"When this woman is defamed in her sexual purity I do not think that the precise manner in which
she has been despoiled of her innocence and virginity is a matter which a jury can properly be asked
to consider."
Scrutton LJ defined a defamatory statement as "a false statement about a man to his discredit".
As to the assessment of damages by the jury: "The constitution has thought, and I think there is
great advantage in it, that the damages to be paid by a person who says false things about his
neighbour are best decided by a jury representing the public."