Day 177 - 26 Oct 95 - Page 45
1 page 173, explaining why it is that one is not allowed to
2 ask people what they thought the words meant; one is not
3 allowed to have evidence about what the words are intended
4 to mean; or, indeed, any other evidence in explanation of
5 the natural and ordinary meaning.
6
7 Then the trade libel cases, if I can call them that,
8 starting with South Hetton Coal C. V. N.E. News
9 Association, which is divider 9. It is perhaps worth
10 noticing the headnote, which is mercifully short. It says:
11
12 "An action of libel will lie at the suit of
13 an incorporated trading company in respect of a
14 libel calculated to injure its reputation in the
15 way of its business, without proof of special
16 damage.
17 The sanitary condition of a large number of
18 cottages let by the proprietors of a colliery to
19 their workmen is a matter of public interest,
20 fair comment on which is not libellous."
21
22 I think, in the end, the Court of Appeal held that the case
23 was one of fair comment. The passage about traders and
24 trade libels starts at page 138, in the judgment of Master
25 of the Rolls, Lord Esher.
26
27 MR. JUSTICE BELL: The second page is well on into the report.
28
29 MR. RAMPTON: I have read this to your Lordship before, so
30 perhaps I need not read the whole of it again. At the
31 bottom of page 138, there is a couple of sentences which
32 your Lordship may find helpful. It is the last complete
33 sentence on the page.
34
35 "It may be published of man in business that he
36 conducts his business in a manner which shews
37 him to be a foolish or incapable man of
38 business. That would be a libel on him in the
39 way of his business, as it is called - that is
40 to say, with regard to his conduct of his
41 business."
42
43 That merely reflects what I suggested to your Lordship this
44 morning might be the lowest rung of trade libels,
45 foolishness or incompetence.
46
47 Then a passage which goes all the way down page 139, in
48 passing, giving an example of the man who sells wine. At
49 the bottom of the page, the Master of the Rolls says:
50
51 "In the present case, assuming that the article
52 complained of had not related to a matter of
53 public interest, the only question would have
54 been whether it contained statements with regard
55 to the conduct by the plaintiffs' company of
56 their business, tending to shew that it was so
57 improper and inefficient as to bring them into
58 contempt or discredit. If the jury found that
59 it did, the plaintiffs would be entitled to
60 damages at large, without giving any evidence of
