Bruce v Odhams Press Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1936 |
| Year | 1936 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
Defamation - Libel - No specific reference to plaintiff - Particulars of allegation that certain words referred to plaintiff.
The defendants published an article in a newspaper published by them in which they referred to certain aeroplane smuggling exploits of “an Englishwoman.” The plaintiff brought a libel action against the defendants, and in her statement of claim she alleged that the words “an Englishwoman,” “she,” and “her,” in the article, referring to the woman who was alleged to have been guilty of plane smuggling, meant the plaintiff, but the plaintiff was not identified in the article by name or description as the woman referred to. The defendants applied for an order for particulars of the allegation that the words complained of referred to the plaintiff. The Master made an Order that the plaintiff should deliver to the defendants particulars of the allegation in the statement of claim, that the words complained of were published of the plaintiff, and that “Englishwoman,” “she,” and “her,” in the words meant the plaintiff, stating the facts from which it was to be inferred that the words were published of the plaintiff and that the said specific words meant the plaintiff. The Judge in Chambers reversed the Order of the Master. On appeal:—
Held, that the material facts on which a plaintiff must rely in a libel action necessarily included the facts and matters from which it was to be inferred that the words were published of the plaintiff. Without a statement of those facts and matters it was impossible for the defendants to be in a position to decide how to plead to the statement of claim. The matters and facts referred to in the Order of the Master were material facts on which the plaintiff relied as a matter of necessity in support of her allegation that she was defamed by the article in question, and under the provisions of Order XIX., r. 4, such facts ought to have been stated in the statement of claim, and if not so stated the defendants were entitled to have further particulars of the allegation that the words referred to the plaintiff.
APPEAL from a decision of Lewis J. sitting in Chambers.
The plaintiff, Mildred Mary Bruce (wife of The Hon. Victor Bruce) was, and was well known as, an airwoman holding a pilot's licence, and an expert in matters of aviation.
The defendants, Odhams Press, Ld., were the printers and publishers of a weekly newspaper entitled The People, which had a large circulation in the United Kingdom.
The plaintiff brought an action against the defendants for libel contained in The People published on September 8, 1935.
The plaintiff by para. 3 of her statement of claim alleged that “In the issue of the said newspaper dated September 8, 1935, the defendants falsely and maliciously printed and published or caused to be printed and published of the plaintiff the following words:—
‘PLANE SMUGGLING.
‘THE NEW RACKET.
‘And it was an Englishwoman’ (thereby meaning the plaintiff) ‘who started it.
‘Plane-running is the latest smuggling “racket” and Abyssinia offers a ready market for those engaged in it.
‘The process is a simple one. Owing to the country's failure to sign the Arms Convention, armaments cannot be exported from Britain to Abyssinia except under licence from the Foreign Office, and this has always been refused.
‘This embargo applies to warplanes exported from this country. There is, however, no ban on aircraft intended for commercial purposes.
‘Taking advantage of this fact a number of machines have been shipped as commercial planes to some neutral country. There a trusted agent proceeds to make the necessary alterations, and in a few hours the machines have been converted into effective bombers and fighters. These warplanes are then transhipped from the neutral country to Abyssinia.
‘This aeroplane running was started by an enterprising young Englishwoman’ (thereby meaning the plaintiff) ‘who began operations during the Bolivia-Paraguay war in South America.
‘By means of a number of aliases, she’ (thereby meaning the plaintiff) ‘bought up all the second-hand aircraft and their component parts that were on the market.
‘Her’ (thereby meaning the plaintiff's) ‘problem was to find secret storage space for these aircraft, and ultimately she’ (meaning the plaintiff) ‘used the vaults of a disused church in the southern counties.
‘There the machines were stored until they were ready for shipment to a South American port, either as commerical aircraft or in their component parts.
‘In this way she’ (thereby meaning the plaintiff) ‘was able to evade the embargo.’”
By para. 4 of the statement of claim the plaintiff alleged that by the said words the defendants meant and were understood to mean that the plaintiff had been constantly engaged for some time past in committing criminal offences by secretly and illegally exporting munitions of war — namely, aircraft, assembled or dismantled, and aircraft engines, contrary to certain specified statutes, and that her conduct in committing the said offences was deserving of the severest condemnation.
On the application of the defendants the Master made an Order that the plaintiff should within fourteen days deliver to the defendants particulars in writing of the allegation in para. 3 of the statement of claim, that the words complained of were published of the plaintiff, and that “Englishwoman,” “she,” and “her,” in the said words meant the plaintiff, stating the facts and matters from which it was to be inferred that the words were published of the plaintiff, and that the said specific words meant the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff should have leave to supplement these particulars at any time up to twenty days before the trial of the action.
The plaintiff appealed from the Order of the Master to the judge in Chambers, who allowed the appeal.
The defendants appealed from the decision of the Judge in Chambers.
Valentine Holmes for the appellants. The defendants are entitled to the particulars which were ordered by the Master, as they are necessary and desirable in order that the defendants may be in a position to decide what their defence to the action should be. The only question in the case is one of identity. Particulars of the kind asked for were ordered in Youssopoff v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures.F1
It is most unusual for a statement of claim in a libel action to omit all the facts and circumstances from which it can be inferred who was meant. These facts ought to have been set out in the statement of claim originally as was done in Jones v. E. Hulton & Co.F2
Cotton L.J. in Philipps v. PhilippsF3 said that “it is absolutely essential that the pleading, not to be embarrassing to the defendants, should state those facts which will put the defendants on their guard and tell them what they have to meet when the case comes on for trial.” That directly applies in the present case. The defendants here are not asking for the evidence but for particulars of the facts upon which the plaintiff relies.
[SLESSER L.J. referred to Ratcliffe v. Evans.F4].
St. John Field for the respondent. If these particulars are ordered it will amount to ordering the plaintiff to state the evidence by which the material facts upon which she relies are to be proved, and will be an infringement of Order XIX., r. 4, of the Rules of the Supreme Court. Under that rule “every pleading shall contain, and contain only, a statement in a summary form of the material facts on which the party pleading relies for his claim …. but not the evidence by which they are to be proved.” Therefore the plaintiff must plead that the words complained of were spoken of her but need not plead anything more. The statement of claim sets out sufficiently the case the defendants will have to meet at the trial.
[GREER L.J. In Philipps v. PhilippsF5 Bramwell L.J. said: “The object of the rules is threefold. It is that the plaintiff may state what his case is for the information of the defendant, and that the plaintiff may be tied down to it and not spring a new case on the defendant; secondly, that the defendant may be at liberty to say, that the statement is not sufficient in point of law, and to raise the point on demurrer; and thirdly, that the defendant, instead of being driven to deny everything by an ambiguous and uncertain statement involving conclusions of law as well as actual facts, and so going down to try an expensive issue, may be at liberty to single out any one statement, and to answer it.”]
The defendants know that the plaintiff will call witnesses who will say that they have read the libel and thought it referred to the plaintiff. What the defendants are asking for by their application is that the plaintiff shall state the reasons why the witnesses have come to that conclusion. The defendants are asking for these particulars under Order XIX., r. 7B., but they have not put in a defence yet, and by that rule “particulars of a claim shall not be ordered under r. 7 to be delivered before defence unless the Court or judge shall be of opinion that they are necessary or desirable to enable the defendant to plead.” Nevertheless the defendants want the plaintiff to state the facts from which it is to be inferred that the libel referred to the plaintiff. In the days of strict pleading before the passing of the
[SLESSER L.J. It is stated in Bullen & Leake's Precedents of Pleading, 3rd ed., p. 304, that “the declaration must state that the words were spoken, or the libel was written ‘of the plaintiff,’ unless the matter itself spoken or published manifestly pointed out and applied to the plaintiff; otherwise the count would be bad even on error.” The question then arises whether the circumstances are set out in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Action
...Fawehinmi v. Akilu Suit No. CA/L/325/890; CA/L/326/89; (1994) 6 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 351) 387 at 471-472. (2) “In Bruce v. Odhams Press Ltd. (1936) 1 K.B. 697 at 704 – 706 the Court held: “It must be appreciated that in a given case particularly in case of this nature where each of the espondents ......
-
Litigation
...Associates Ltd v Corporate City Developments Number Two Ltd [2010] EWHC 3189 (TCC) at [11], per Coulson J. 261 Bruce v Odhams Press Ltd [1936] 1 KB 697 at 712, per Scott LJ. See also Cheick Ltd v JDM Associates (No 2) (1989) 22 Con LR 16 at 26–27, per Judge Fox-Andrews QC; NRNQ v MEQ Nickel......
-
Pleadings
...WB. Williston & RJ. Rolles, The Law of Civil Procedure (Toronto: Butterworths, 1970), vol. 2, at 678, and Bruce v. Odhams Press, Ltd., [1936] 1 K.B. 697 (C.A.). Arnott v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan, [1954] 1 D.L.R. 529, per Gordon J. at 557 (Sask. C.A.), citing Knupp......
-
International Mass Actions and Class Actions - B. Australia
...the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action. If it does not it is liable to be struck out: Mitanis; Bruce v Odhams Press Ltd [1936] 1 KB 697 at 712-13. It will generally be appropriate (and necessary) for the applicant to plead the overt acts it intends to rely on to justify the i......