Day 312 - 11 Dec 96 - Page 06


     
     1        tribute will have a good effect on your general
     2        reputation."
     3
     4        That is the end of the quote which Lord Moreton gave.  He
     5        then goes on:
     6
     7        "Such a method of assessing damages would do less than
     8        justice to the Plaintiff, in my view, and it is based upon
     9        suppositions which may be unfounded."
    10
    11        This is where the judgment chimes with what your Lordship
    12        was saying the other day:
    13
    14        "A judge cannot tell how widely his judgment will be
    15        reported and read, nor can he tell how far the Plaintiff's
    16        general reputation will be improved by his complimentary
    17        remarks.  A simple verdict of a jury in favour of the
    18        Plaintiff will no doubt have a good effect on his
    19        reputation, and it is surely impossible to set a monetary
    20        value upon the difference, if any, between the effect of
    21        the jury's finding and the effect of the judge's finding,
    22        plus a compliment from him."
    23
    24   MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes.
    25
    26   MR. RAMPTON:  My Lord, the other error we have made, again it
    27        was an error in the Defendants' favour, but the other error
    28        we think now, having looked at Booth v Briscoe, which I now
    29        know what your Lordship has done is to suppose that it was
    30        right for us to say we were content with a single award for
    31        both the Plaintiffs.  On the authorities, although Booth v
    32        Briscoe was clearly an exceptional case, I suppose in an
    33        exceptional case that practice might still hold good, in
    34        the ordinary case the Plaintiffs' rights are several,
    35        separate and distinct.  Although they can now join in an
    36        action which before the Judicature Acts they could not,
    37        they still have to be given separate awards of damages,
    38        according to the merits of the case of each of them, as the
    39        court assesses those merits.
    40
    41   MR. JUSTICE BELL: But the position, you say, is still the same,
    42        that if and in so far as I were to find that Ms. Steel and
    43        Mr. Morris were privy to an endeavour with others to
    44        publish the leaflet, then you say they are jointly liable
    45        for that part but then severally liable for anything in
    46        addition to that?
    47
    48   MR. RAMPTON:  That is right.  They are joint tort-feasors for
    49        joint torts, and to the extent that they co-operate or
    50        collaborate with others in the distribution and publication
    51        of the leaflet, they are joint tort-feasors.  Their
    52        liability is for those publications joint and several, in
    53        the sense that one could have sued one and not the other;
    54        one can execute one and not the other.  Where, however,
    55        only one of them has been responsible for a publication,
    56        then plainly the other one, if there is no liability in
    57        that other one, cannot be and no judgment could be executed
    58        against that other one who did not participate on that or
    59        those occasions.
    60

Prev Next Index