Berkoff v Burchill [1996] 4 All ER 1008

Court: Court of Appeal

Basic Facts:

• D compared C to Frankenstein’s monster, stating that "Frankenstein’s monster is marginally better looking." C sued for libel, arguing that the comparison implied extreme unattractiveness.

Issue for the Court:

• What is capable of being defamatory?

Held: Appeal dismissed, as the comments held the claimant up to public ridicule, and were thus potentially defamatory, their actual effect being open to a jury decision

Neill LJ (dismissing the appeal)

• Definitions of defamatory statements include:

• Scrutton LJ in Tournier v National Provincial Bank: Words that expose the plaintiff to hatred, ridicule, or contempt in the mind of a reasonable person.

• Youssoupoff v MGM Pictures Ltd: False statements that damage a person’s reputation without lawful excuse.

• Lord Atkin in Sim v Stretch: Words that lower a person’s standing in the estimation of right-thinking members of society.

• Millet LJ (dissenting, allowing the appeal) argued that calling someone "hideously ugly" does not necessarily expose them to ridicule in a legally actionable sense, and such insults should not lead to defamation claims.