Dingle v Associated Newspapers Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE SELLERS,LORD JUSTICE PEARCE,LORD JUSTICE DEVLIN |
| Judgment Date | 08 February 1961 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1961] EWCA Civ J0208-1 |
| Date | 08 February 1961 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
[1961] EWCA Civ J0208-1
Lord Justice Sellers
Lord Justice Pearce and
Lord Justice Devlin
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
Mr. GEOFFREY LAWRENCE. Q.C. and Mr. W.D.T. HODGSON (instructed by Messrs. Stephenson, Harwood & Tatham, Agents for Messrs. Grundy Kershaw, Farrar & Co., Manchester) appeared on behalf of the Appellant (Plaintiff).
Mr. NEVILLE FAULKS. Q.C. and Mr. DAVID HIRST (instructed by Messrs Swepstone, Walsh & Sons) appeared on behalf of the Respondents (Defendants).
: This is an appeal by the plaintiff in respect of a judgment in his favour for £1,100 damages for defamation of character given by Mr. Justice Pearson against the defendants as the publishers of the "Daily Mail" and the editor and a reporter of the "Daily Mail" respectively.
It has been submitted that the amount awarded is on any view far too small and out of harmony with the present-day awards in comparable circumstances. More particularly it has been submitted that in arriving at his assessment of damages the learned judge misdirected himself in law and misapprehended certain vital facts and issues.
The plaintiff is the Town Clerk of Manchester and has been in this important office since 1944 when he was appointed at the age of 38. His promotion with the Manchester Corporation was rapid. He was appointed Senior Assistant Solicitor in January, 1938, and advanced to Deputy Town Clerk in October of the same year. In addition to the office of Town Clerk the plaintiff holds many other appointments which are associated with or incidental to that position. He was, and is, undoubtedly well-known in Local Government circles and his duties bring him into professional association with a wide range of people, not only fellow-lawyers but administrators, both governmental and local, particularly in South East Lancashire.
Anything disparaging of the plaintiff might be regarded as news but it is obvious that a man in such a position would be highly vulnerable to allegations against his integrity and honesty or his standards of conduct in his office and profession. If those who provide and publish material for newspapers find that defamatory material affecting a public man, such as the plaintiff, is "news" they cannot be unaware that it will be most damaging and hurtful to him whether true or untrue and therefore of the risk they run of heavy damages if the matter they choose to write and publish is untrue and unprotected.
A man's legitimate grievance in such a matter can only be redressed in a court of law by an award of damages commensurate with the wrong done, especially when no apology is forthcoming when the true facts are known or are ascertainable.
It is right to say at the outset that the plaintiff vindicated his character from whatever source it was impugned and showed that he acted throughout in the best interests of all concerned in the matter which gave rise to all the trouble. I would say also that the plaintiff, despite much provocation to act immediately and to denounce those who misjudged him, restrained himself and curbed his personal interest in order to serve the Corporation which employed him, by doing nothing which might prejudice or delay an important Bill which the Corporation was seeking to have passed through Parliament. This was desirable and commendable and in no way mitigates the responsibility of the defendants.
It was from this Bill that all the trouble arose. The history of the Ardwick Cemetery in Manchester is amply set out in the judgment of Mr. Justice Pearson and I do not repeat it. There is no doubt that it had become not only unserviceable as a cemetery but in a state of neglect and ruin which made it an eyesore and a most undesirable open place which was frequented by hooligans and children. It was therefore in the interest of the City and its good administration that the site should be acquired and be properly controlled. The contemplated Manchester Corporation Bill provided an opportunity to insert some minor provisions giving power to the Corporation to deal with the Ardwick Cemetery and this brought to a head the matter which had been under consideration for some time.
In 1925 the Ardwick Cemetery Limited was formed and, put shortly, it acquired the Cemetery and presumably took over its obligations. The company's concern was not to conduct or maintain it as a cemetery but, it seems, to sell or let off what land it could, the legality of which is at least questionable.
As far back as 1948 the plaintiff and other officials of his Corporation had discussed with Mr. Bromley and Mr. Evans, directors of the company, a proposal that the Corporation should acquire the company's undertaking in order to convert the cemetery into an open space but nothing came of it. At intervals there were further meetings, discussions and correspondence until on the 2nd December, 1957, the plaintiff, in his capacity as Town Clerk, wrote this letter to the shareholders of Ardwick Cemetery Limited! "Dear Sir or Madam. Ardwick Cemetery Limited. If you have not visited this cemetery recently you may not be aware how neglected it has become. The entrance gates are broken and the growth of weeds and shrubbery has in places made it almost impossible to reach some of the graves. It is difficult to see how the cemetery company, with their limited resources, can hope to make any substantial improvement in these con-ditions, and there seems a real danger of the Cemetery becoming a public scandal as has happened with one or two commercial cemeteries in other towns. The company could not dispose of the cemetery for commercial purposes without obtaining an Act of Parliament and at a very high cost, as this would involve not only the removal of the tombstones but also the exhumation of all the human remains. The City Council could usefully make use of the land for school playing fields or as an open space (which should avoid having to remove the human remains) and they will be prepared to do this notwithstanding the considerable cost in-volved in clearing away the weeds and removing the tombstones, if they are able to acquire the cemetery undertaking as a whole, which means acquiring all the shares. They have therefore instructed me to include the necessary clauses in the Corporation's Bill which has now been deposited in Parliament, and to make a formal offer to the shareholders of £1 per share. This is considered a generous offer considering that the dividend paid of recent years, and not every year, has been only 2½ per cent. It is realised that the company still have some investments and also receive rent from some properties, but it will be appreciated that it would hardly be fair to expect the Corporation to acquire the burdensome part of the company's property, namely the cemetery itself, and for the shareholders to retain the profitable assets in the shape of investments and the rents. I am therefore writing to ask you to let me know if you would be prepared to accept an offer of £1 per share for the shares which you hold in the company if the Corporation obtain the necessary powers from Parliament, as unless it is clear that a majority of the shareholders are prepared to agree to this I think the Corporation may drop the proposal. You will understand that if this opportunity is allowed to pass, it is doubtful whether such a favourable offer would be forthcoming in the future, quite apart from the fact that the company may in the meantime be forced by public opinion to use more of their income and investments on caring for the cemetery than they have done in the past. It would be most helpful if you would let me have your decision as soon as possible".
Mr. Justice Pearson comments on that letter as follows:
"I studied it very carefully and I see nothing wrong with that letter at all; nothing wrong with it at all. I cannot see anything in the least improper about it. To my mind, it placed the whole position quite fairly before the shareholders. That was important, of course, and one is basing that finding on the view now taken as to the value of the shares: really, it was a generous offer, from that point of view, and perfectly fair".
I now turn to the pleadings, which allege two separate libels. The first is in the "Daily Mail" for the 16th June, 1958, as set out in paragraph 3 of the Statement of Claim, which sets out the whole article and I do not propose to read it now. Paragraph 4 is as follows; "By the words set out in paragraph 3 hereof the Defendants meant and were understood to mean that the Plaintiff had by a statement which he knew to be misleading, false or deceptive or by the dishonest concealment of material facts induced or attempted to induce the shareholders of the Ardwick Cemetery Limited to enter into or offer to enter into an agreement for disposing of their shares in the said company and that the Plaintiff was guilty of an offence under section 12 (1) of the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Act 1939".
Some of the statements made in the article complained of were found to he true and justified by the defendants but substantial defamatory matters were not justified or even alleged to be true. Any innuendo must be derived from the defamatory statements which were not justified.
The judgment finds, after a full and careful analysis of the evidence, that the shares of the company were of very dubious value and were worth much less than £1 each and that any Corporation which offered to buy them in 1957 or 1958 at £1 each was making a generous offer. It was established that after April, 1940, the highest price paid for any share was 10s. Od. and that in December, 1955, Mr. Evans had bought 24 shares at 2s.6d. each, at which price shares in the company had on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clarice Louise Wright v Cambridge Medical Group
...after she was admitted on 17 April. 50 In support of this contention, Mr Oppenheim relied on an observation of Devlin LJ in Dingle v Associated Newspapers Ltd [1961] 2 QB 162, 188–9, where he said: "Where an injury has been done to the plaintiff and the injury is indivisible, any tortfeasor......
-
Lee Kuan Yew v Tang Liang Hong and Another
... ... Chicago v Tribune Co 139 NE 86 (1923) (distd) Derbyshire County Council v Times Newspapers Ltd [1993] AC 534; [1993] 1 All ER 1011 (distd) Dingle v Associated Newspapers Ltd [1964] ... ...
- Rost v Edwards
-
TV Media Pte Ltd v De Cruz Andrea Heidi and Another Appeal
...the pills. 155 The law as to the apportionment of damages between joint tortfeasors is laid out in Dingle v Associated Newspapers Ltd [1961] 2 QB 162, which was adopted by us in Chuang Uming (Pte) Ltd v Setron Ltd [2000] 1 SLR 166. The English Court of Appeal held at Where injury has been d......
-
Comment: FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS TO THE FAIRCHILD EXCEPTION AND EXTENT OF NEGLIGENCE LIABILITY
...AC 176. 10 Supra, n 4 at [55]—[57], per Lord Scott. 11 Supra, n 4 at [114]. 12 [2002] UKHL 22 at [43]. 13 Supra, n 4 at [100]—[101]. 14 [1961] 2 QB 162 at 188-189. 15 Supra, n 4 at [86], per Lord Rodger. 16 Supra, n 4 at [79], per Lord Rodger. 17 Supra, n 4 at [36]. 18 Gregg v Scott, supra,......