Langlands v John Leng & Company
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 21 January 1916 |
| Docket Number | No. 8. |
| Date | 21 January 1916 |
| Court | House of Lords |
Viscount Haldane, Lord Kinnear, Lord Shaw of Dunfermline, Lord Parmoor, Ld. Wrenbury.
ReparationSlanderInnuendoNewspaperComments on matter of public interestCriticism of position of architect to school boardCriticism of system or of individual
An architect was employed by a school board under an agreement by which he acted as architect, and received the ordinary commission, in the case of alterations or enlargements of existing buildings, but where new buildings were erected the work was thrown open to public competition. An article in a newspaper, in commenting upon the proceedings at a meeting of the school board at which it appeared that the cost of certain proposed enlargements of an existing school according to the tenders received would be nearly double the estimate of cost prepared by the architect, referred to the large sums expended by the school board on enlargements, and added with reference to the terms of the architect's employment:The rule as interpreted is an absurdity, and it puts a premium upon a certain kind of advice. The architect having brought an action of damages for slander against the proprietors of the newspaper, the Second Division allowed an issue.
The House of Lords (rev. that decision) dismissed the action, holding that the statement was a fair criticism of the system and not a criticism of the pursuer as an individual, and that it would not bear an innuendo to the effect that the pursuer in his position of architect had acted corruptly for his personal benefit.
(In the Court of Session, 9th July 1915.)
On 15th October 1914 James Henry Langlands, architect, Dundee, brought an action of damages for slander against John Leng & Co., Limited, proprietors, printers, and publishers of the Dundee AdvertiserThe pursuer founded upon an article in the issue of that newspaper of 7th October 1914, which commented upon the proceedings that had taken place at a meeting of the Dundee School Board, and also, but only subsidiarily, upon a report of these proceedings in the same issue of the newspaper. The circumstances of the case were as follows:
The pursuer was architect to the School Board of Dundee, a condition of his appointment being that in the case of alterations or additions or extensions affecting existing buildings he was employed as architect, and remunerated by commission in the ordinary way, but in the case of new buildings the work was thrown open to public competition among architects. In 1911,1912, and 1913 the School Board considered the question of making additions or extensions to the Harris Academy in Dundee. An estimate of the cost was made by Mr Langlands, and the extensions were resolved upon, but, when tenders were received from contractors, it became apparent that the cost would be approximately double of that estimated by the architect, and would amount to nearly 32,000. The matter came up at one of the monthly meetings of the School Board, and a report of what took place at the meeting was published in the Dundee Advertiser of 7th October 1914. The substantial accuracy of this report was not challenged by the pursuer, but some comment was made on the head words, which were, School Board Plight.Estimates that have doubled.Probable Drastic Action. From the report it appeared that Mr Bisset, the chairman, explained the situation, and, after referring to a letter from a firm of measurers who had been employed to report on the tenders received, and after stating that he did not think that the letter from the measurers suggested any reason arising out of the war or otherwise for such an enormously increased estimate, he proposed a motion that the scheme should be departed from, that the architect should render his account, all objections thereto being reserved; further, that any new scheme should be determined by competitive plans, and that to that end the termination of the present agreement with their architect should be considered at the next meeting. Ultimately the whole matter was postponed for future consideration.
In the same issue of their newspaper the defenders published the following article, under the heading
Dundee School Board and its Aechitect.
Mr Christopher Bisset goes the right way about it in the resolution he submitted at Dundee School Board yesterday dealing with the extraordinary muddle of the Harris Academy extension. The Board resolved on its present policy of extending the existing Academy on the basis of a plan and estimate by its architect, showing that the enlargement would cost 17,100. If the estimate had been for a much larger figure it is practically certain that the policy of enlargement would not have been adopted. But the offers from contractors show that the work will cost very nearly double the estimated amount, and the increase is not accounted for by war prices. In these circumstances Mr Bisset proposes to depart from the scheme, and it is imperative that the whole position be considered anew. The second part of Mr Bisset's motion is not less important, dealing as it does with the whole position of the architect. The Board has at present the curious arrangement with its architect by which he undertakes all work of the nature of alterations and additions to existing structures, while new buildings are submitted to open competition. Apparently the idea under this is that the Board's architect should manage the small things, while for the large things there is open competition. But for a considerable time past the enlargements have been much bigger jobs than the erection of new structurese.g., the enlargement of Morgan Academy costing about 20,000, and the projected enlargement of the Harris Academy, which would cost about 32,000. The rule as interpreted is an absurdity, and it puts a premium upon a certain kind of advice. Mr Bisset proposes to make an end to it, and it is to be hoped that in the public interest the Board will support its chairman.
The pursuer averred, inter alia;(Cond. 7) The statements complained of represent, and were intended by the defenders to represent, that the pursuer had wilfully and corruptly misled the Board by furnishing estimates which he knew to be false, inaccurate, and misleading, for the purpose of inducing the Board to proceed with extensions and alterations of the said academy, to enable the pursuer to earn fees, and that the pursuer was a man whose advice was coloured by self-interest, and who placed the earning of fees above the interest of his clients.. The said statements mean, and were intended to mean, that the pursuer had been unfaithful to the trust reposed in him, and had in his position acted corruptly for his personal benefit.
On 9th July 1915 the Second...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alan Massie V. Callum Mccaig And Others
... ... a controlling interest in Carlton Rock Ltd, a property development company functioning in the Aberdeen area. Between March 2011 and May 2012, the ... ...
-
Frances Curran V. Scottish Daily Record And Sunday Mail Limited
...made of them was available. In that context reference was made to McLaughlin v Orr Pollock & Co [1894] 22 R 38, Langlands v Leng 1916 SC (HL) 102 and Mutch v Robertson 1981 SLT 217. Those decisions all supported the contention that criticisms of someone holding public office could not have ......
- The Herald and Weekly Times Ltd v Mcgregor
-
Macdonald v Martin
...v. BUNK, (1895) 22 R. 984; Cassidy v. Connochie, 1907 S. C. 1112; Murray v. Wyllie, 1916 S. C. 356; Langlands v. John Leng & Co., 1916 S. C. (H. L.) 102. 7 Milne v. SmithUNK, (1892) 20 R. 95, Lord M'Laren at p. 100; Urquhart v. DickUNK, (1865) 3 Macph. 932. 8 Evans & Sons v. Stein & Co.UNK,......