Day 177 - 26 Oct 95 - Page 46


     
     1             particular damage.  If this had not been a
     2             matter of public interest, I think that the
     3             article was such as would entitle the jury to
     4             find that it was a libel on the plaintiffs'
     5             company."
     6
     7        Then finally in this authority, on page 141, which is the
     8        next page, in the judgment of Lopes L.J., he says in the
     9        third paragraph:
    10
    11             "It is not contended that the words complained
    12             of are not prima facie defamatory."
    13
    14        He then asks three questions:
    15
    16             "(1)  Will the action lie by the plaintiffs, who
    17             are a corporation?"
    18
    19        The answer is in the next paragraph.
    20
    21   MR. MORRIS:  Sorry, I cannot find you here.
    22
    23   MR. RAMPTON:  141.
    24
    25   MR. MORRIS:  Whereabouts?
    26
    27   MR. RAMPTON:  I am starting "with regard", answering question
    28        (1) "Will the question lie with the plaintiffs, who are a
    29        corporation".
    30
    31             "With regard to the first point I am of opinion
    32             that, although a corporation cannot maintain an
    33             action for libel in respect of anything
    34             reflecting upon them personally, yet they can
    35             maintain an action for a libel reflecting on the
    36             management of their trade or business, and this
    37             without alleging or proving special damage.  The
    38             words complained of, in order to entitle a
    39             corporation or company to sue for libel or
    40             slander must injuriously affect the corporation
    41             or company as distinct from the individuals who
    42             compose it.  A corporation or company could not
    43             sue in respect of a charge of murder, or incest,
    44             or adultery, because it could not commit these
    45             crimes.  Nor could it sue in respect of a charge
    46             of corruption or of an assault, because a
    47             corporation cannot be guilty of corruption or of
    48             an assault, although the individuals composing
    49             it may be."
    50 
    51        That particular passage has often been doubted, and one can 
    52        see why.  The next words, however, are important. 
    53
    54             "The words complained of must attack the
    55             corporation or company in the method of
    56             conducting its affairs, must accuse it of fraud
    57             or mismanagement, or must attack its financial
    58             position" ---
    59
    60        -- by which I take Lopes L.J. to mean its creditworthiness

Prev Next Index