James v Baird
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 11 April 1916 |
| Date | 11 April 1916 |
| Docket Number | No. 17. |
| Court | House of Lords |
Ld. Chancellor (Buckmaster), Earl Loreburn, Viscount Haldane, Lord Kinnear, Ld. Atkinson.
ReparationSlanderPrivilegeStatement made to parish council with regard to medical officerStatement made in the interest of the poor.
PoorMedical reliefOld age pensionerDuty of parish council to provide old age pensioner with medical relief.
The president of a district nursing association sent to the parish council a letter calling their attention to the fact that the parish medical officer had failed to obtain the services of the association's nurse for one of his patients, Mrs H, who was an old age pensioner, but not a pauper. The letter, which narrated with substantial accuracy the facts which had occurred, made no specific charge against the medical officer; but it concluded with these words:I venture to bring Mrs H's case to your notice as one who should have been given help which was within reach and to which she was entitled. The parish council had on two occasions issued instructions to their medical officer to call in the services of the association's nurse where required.
The medical officer, who had been attending Mrs H as a private practitioner and not in his capacity as medical officer, brought an action of damages for slander against the writer of the letter.
Held (rev. judgment of the First Division) (1) that the defender's position as president of the association, coupled with the general interest which she took in the welfare of the poor, would have made the occasion privileged even had the parish council owed no special duty towards the patient; but (2) that the parish council had a duty of affording medical relief to old age pensioners which per se rendered the occasion privileged.
Lord Macnaghten's observation in Jenoure v. DelmegeELR, [1891] A. C. 73, at p. 77, To protect those who are not able to protect themselves is a duty which everyone owes to society,approved.
ReparationSlanderIssueInnuendoRespective duties of Court and pursuerNecessity of averring innuendo on record.
Observations on the duty of the Court and the pursuer repectively with regard to the framing of issues in actions of libel. In particular, observed that it is the pursuer's duty to state distinctly upon record the libellous meaning which he attaches to the writing of which he complains.
(In the Court of Session 13th January 1916Infra, Court of Session Cases, p. 510. Also reported at a previous stage 27th October 19141915 S. C. 23.)
The defender appealed to the House of Lords.
The case was heard on 10th and 11th April 1916.1
Lord Chancellor.This is an appeal from the judgment of the First Division of the Court of Session upon a bill of exceptions lodged by the appellant against the direction of the Lord Ordinary at the trial of an action for libel. The real question involved in the dispute is whether the matter complained of was published on a privileged occasion. The bill of exceptions deals with this question of privilege on a very narrow and particular footing, and the respondent urges that your Lordships' attention must be confined to that narrow issue. For reasons that will appear, I do not think that that question is material, because, even in relation to the special circumstances referred to in the bill of exceptions, I think the occasion was privileged. The dispute is most unfortunate, and appears to have arisen owing to differences of opinion strongly and, I doubt not, sincerely held by the appellant and the respondent with regard to the wisdom of establishing and employing a district nurse in the parish of Haddington. The appellant, who is a lady resident in the district and greatly interested in the welfare of the poor, in 1908 established a nursing association in the parish, of which she was elected to, and still continues to hold, the office of president. The main object of this association is to provide the services of a district nurse for the care of sick and poor people in their own homes. Its objects are in no way limited to attending the poor who are in receipt of poor relief or otherwise under control of the poor-law authorities. The respondent is the Medical Officer of Health for the parish, and he was appointed in 1907. He took the view that the institution of the district nurse was not necessary, and that poor people can find equal comfort and relief when attended in their sickness by the kind attention of their neighbours and friends. The Parish Council, however, looked favourably on the institution, and appear to have originally
voted a sum of 5 for the district nurse, but on the 8th September 1908 that vote was rescinded, and the 5 was divided, being applied as to 3 to the nursing association of the burgh and as to 2 to that of the county.
The respondent appears to have completely disregarded the opportunity for using the services of the nurse, and accordingly in 1909 the appellant wrote to the chairman of the Parish Council calling attention to the fact that the district nurse had not been called in for any case of illness among the poor who were on the poor-roll of the parish. In June of 1909 the Parish Council considered this letter, and, after considerable discussion and after hearing what the respondent had to say, passed a resolution in these terms: That when Dr Wallace James finds a case of sickness requiring nursing he should, instead of calling in a neighbour, call in the services of the district nurse. A further resolution on the same matter was passed on the 14th June 1910 to the effect that in future the Medical Officer be instructed to call in the district nurse in all cases of pauper sickness and of filthy or verminous persons on the pauper-roll, and this was amended by yet another resolution on the 6th July 1910 which provided that:The services of the nurse should only be called in by the doctor, and that sickness should be the only reason for calling in the nurse.
For the purpose of this appeal it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Loutchansky v Times Newspapers Ltd (No. 2)
...his own clear view on the facts of that particular case. The second part of the quotation is in fact not from Stuart -v- Bell but from James -v- Baird. [1916] SC (HL) 158, 163–164, and the last part is from Gatley on Libel and Slander (9 th Edn),para.14.6, p.331 46 Secondly, however, and a......
-
Papaconstuntinos v Holmes a Court
...(1994), vol 1 at 851 [13.7](1), n 1435. 99 Adam v Ward [1917] AC 309 at 348. 100 (1940) 64 CLR 206 at 214; [1940] HCA 38. 101 Baird v Wallace-James (1916) 85 LJ PC 193 at 198 (also reported sub nom James v Baird 1916 SC (HL) 158 at 163–164). See also Dundas v Livingstone & Co (1900) 3 ......
-
Loutchansky v Times Newspapers Ltd
...brought together and discussed in paragraphs 14.04 to 14.06 of Duncan & Neill on Defamation (2nd Edition, 1983). In Jones v Baird [1916] SC(HL) 158 Earl Loreburn described how a court should set about its task of determining whether the occasion of publication attracted privilege. He said a......
- Telegraph Newspaper Company Ltd v Bedford