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
