Cunningham-Howie v F. W. Dimbleby & Sons Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Year | 1950 |
| Date | 1950 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
33 cases
-
Lord v Sunday Telegraph Ltd
...realised this and gave particulars of the facts on which they based their comment, see Cunnlng– ( Ham–Howle v. F.W. Dlmbleby & Sons Ltd. 1951 1 K.B. 360). They set out in seven numbered paragraphs a whole series of facts which they intend to prove at the trial. 3 Now the plaintiff's adviser......
-
MRA INTERNATIONAL SDN BHD vs SPC DIATECH, LLC
...must get his basic facts right. The basic facts are those which go the pith and substance of the matter: see Cunningham-Howie v Dimbleby [1951] 1 KB 360, 364. They are the facts on which the comments are based or from which the inferences are drawn – as distinct commentator need not set out......
-
Lord Ashcroft KCMG v Stephen Foley and Others
...Defendants are required to set out the facts on which they rely to "warrant" the comment; see CPR 53PD.14 para 2.6(2), and further Cunningham-Howie v Dimbleby [1951] 1 K. B. 360 and Lord v Sunday Telegraph [1971] 1 Q.B. 235. If it was the defendants' intention to establish in their honest c......
-
Matthias Rath v (1) Guardian News and Media Ltd (2) Ben Goldacre
...facts are true on which the comment is based; and the defendant can be ordered to give particulars of those facts: see Cunningham-Howie v. F. W. Dimbleby & Sons, Ltd. [1951] 1 K.B. 360. So long as that implication is read into the plea, it is unobjectionable…. Three points arise on the def......
Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
-
Pleadings
...Graphic), above. Rotstein v. Globe and Mail (1997), 18 C.P.C. (4th) 144 (Ont. Gen. Div). CunninghamHowie v. F.W. Dimbleby & Sons Ltd., [1951] 1K.B. 360 at 363, [1950] 2 All E.R. at 882 (C.A.). Lehouxv. Riehl, [1997] B.C.J. No. 1736 (S.C.). Firestone v. Smith, [1991] B.C.J. No. 2660 at 4 (Ma......