Day 311 - 06 Dec 96 - Page 58


     
     1
     2   MR. RAMPTON:  What he-----
     3
     4   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  It must be worth compensation?
     5
     6   MR. RAMPTON:  Yes.  A company, as sometimes it is put, and
     7        I think it maybe it was in the same case, can only be
     8        injured in its pocket.  As your Lordship was discussing,
     9        putting to me the other day, it does not have any hurt
    10        feelings because it does not have any feelings.  There are
    11        certain allegations about it which cannot be defamatory
    12        because it cannot do that kind of wrong.  If there is an
    13        impact, and now, of course, one is talking about
    14        compensation, on its pocket it will be through the damage
    15        to its reputation in the eyes of its suppliers, its
    16        employees, and, of course, in particular, its potential and
    17        actual customers.
    18
    19   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  The last matter is this, and it is paragraph
    20        7, that it is said that if they were to succeed the two
    21        Plaintiffs would be content with a single award.  But is
    22        that really right?  The case which Gatley gives authority
    23        for the statement in paragraph 1466 is Booth v Briscoe,
    24        which is now 119 years ago, and if my recollection is right
    25        those were two trustees who were suing and an award was
    26        made to them jointly.  They sued together but they had
    27        several claims, that means separate claims; there was a
    28        single award made to both of them, and on appeal the court
    29        said, and I did make a note of this, "their damages are
    30        several so they ought to have been severally" -- that is
    31        separately assessed -- "but who is to complain..."  Because
    32        they got 40 shillings damages, and the court suggested that
    33        the Plaintiffs had not complained about it, the Defendants
    34        could hardly complain because if they had been awarded
    35        separate damages they would have got much more than 40
    36        shillings between them, so what is the point in disturbing
    37        the order?  But, unfortunately, I will have read Booth v
    38        Briscoe before I make an award in your clients' favour, if
    39        I do make an award.  So do I not have to make a separate
    40        award?
    41
    42   MR. RAMPTON:  I was trying to make life easier for
    43        your Lordship.  There are some areas of the leaflet which
    44        are more defamatory of the US Corporation than they are of
    45        the English company.  They are all parts of the defamatory,
    46        both; they are not on an equal footing everywhere and maybe
    47        the employment bit, for example, being published to an
    48        English audience would be calculated to cause more damage
    49        to the English company, for example, other parts where
    50        there is equal footing, in nutrition, animals and so on and 
    51        so forth, advertising, food poisoning.  But my Lord, I do 
    52        not put that forward as a submission of what your Lordship 
    53        should do, merely that that possibility exists.
    54
    55        But if, when it comes to it, having reviewed all the
    56        evidence and made up your Lordship's mind what the relative
    57        gravities are, your Lordship wants to make separate awards
    58        that is certainly not something we are going to complain
    59        about.
    60

Prev Next Index