From our private database of 30,900+ case briefs...
Broadway Approvals LTD. V. Odhams Press, LTD.
England and Wales Court of Appeal
1 W.L.R. 805 (1965)
Facts
A child ordered a package of stamps advertised at one shilling by Broadway Approvals LTD. (Broadway) (plaintiff). The child received a package of stamps that were costlier than those advertised, followed by letters to the child’s parents requesting payment or return of the stamps. The child’s parents wrote a letter to the newspaper the People to complain of Broadway’s business practices. The People conducted interviews with the child, the child’s parents, and Broadway’s managing director, George Santo (plaintiff). The People then published an article on Broadway with negative implications about Broadway’s business model. Broadway and Santo brought a libel action against Odhams Press, LTD. (Odhams) (defendant), publisher of the People, and its editor, Stuart Campbell (defendant). The jury found that a fair-minded man in good faith may have shared the defamatory opinion given the proven facts in the article. However, the jury also found that the defamatory implication of the article—that Broadway’s conduct was discreditable—was not substantially true and that Odhams and Campbell acted with malice. The court found in favor of Broadway and Santo. Odhams and Campbell appealed. The case came before the Court of Appeal.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Russell, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 553,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 30,900 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
