Lord Hamilton v Glasgow Dairy Company
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Buckmaster,Viscount Dunedin,Lord Warrington of Clyffe,Lord Thankerton,Lord Russell of Killowen,. |
| Judgment Date | 23 March 1931 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1931] UKHL J0323-4 |
| Court | House of Lords |
| Docket Number | No. 6. |
| Date | 23 March 1931 |
HL
Lord Buckmaster. Viscount Dunedin. Lord Warrington of Clyffe. Lord Thankerton. Lord Russell of Killowen.
Slander—Innuendo—Privilege—Malice—Sufficiency of averments of malice—Action by producer of milk against dairy company based on circular issued to customers.
In an action of damages for slander, brought against a dairy company by a producer of high grade milk, the pursuer averred that he had, for a considerable period, supplied "certified milk" to the defenders for distribution among their customers; that, on 11th May 1929, he received a letter intimating that no further supply would be required after 31st May, as thereafter "one of our own shareholders is now in a position to supply our customers"; that, on 26th May, the pursuer enclosed, within the sealing capsules of the bottles of milk supplied by him to the defenders, a notice to consumers of his milk that, as his milk would not be obtainable from the then distributors after 1st June, those who desired it thereafter should communicate with the pursuer's manager; and that, on 28th May, the defenders issued a circular to their customers stating that, upon bacteriological examination, the pursuer's milk had been found not to comply with the statutory regulations regarding "certified milk," in that bacillus coli had been found in one-tenth cubic centimetre, and that, as a result, they had decided to look out for another source of supply, and, after testing samples of milk from various producers, had selected the new supplier's milk as the most satisfactory. It was admitted by the defenders that the standard of "certified milk" was so high that, even with every care, isolated samples of it might be found to fall below the standard.
The pursuer proposed an issue in which he innuendoed the circular of 28th May as representing that he had supplied milk to the defenders as "certified milk" which was of an inferior quality and contaminated with bacillus coli, and that, in consequence, the defenders had terminated their contract with the pursuer.
Held (1) (aff. judgment of the First Division) that the circular was capable of supporting the innuendo proposed; and (2) that, while the occasion on which the circular was issued was privileged, the pursuer had (as was eventually conceded by the defenders) relevantly averred facts and circumstances from which malice might be inferred; and issue allowed.
Dicta of Lord Kinnear in Russell v. Stubbs, Limited, 1913 S. C. (H. L.) 14, at p. 20, [1913] A. C. 386, at p. 393, approved, and observedthat they are not modified or affected by the dicta of Viscount Haldane in Langlands v. John Leng & Co., 1916 S. C. (H. L.) 102, at p. 105.
(In the Court of Session, 20th March 1930—1930 S. C. 683).
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell brought an action against (first) the Glasgow Dairy Company, Limited, 8 Ashley Street, Glasgow, and (second) Arthur Gilmour, C.A., 8 Ashley Street, Glasgow (who was the secretary and manager of the Company), concluding for decree against the defenders, jointly and severally, for the sum of £4000 as damages for slander.
The circumstances of the case, as disclosed by the averments of parties, will be found narrated by Lord Buckmaster in his speech.
On 12th December 1929 the Lord Ordinary (Moncrieff) dismissed the action on the ground that the pursuer had failed to make a sufficient averment of malice.
On 20th March 1931 the First Division recalled the interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary and approved of the following issue:—"Whether … the defenders … wrote … a letter … and whether the said letter … falsely, calumniously, and maliciously represented (1) that the pursuer had supplied milk to the defenders the Glasgow Dairy Company, Limited, as certified milk which was of an inferior quality and contaminated with bacillus coli, and (2) that in consequence thereof the said defenders had ceased to continue business with him, to his loss, injury, and damage?"
The defenders appealed to the House of Lords, and the appeal was heard on 3rd and 5th March 1931.
The undernoted authorities were cited in the course of the arguments.1
At delivering judgment on 23rd March 1931,—
LORD BUCKMASTER .—The appellants the Glasgow Dairy Co. carry on the business of retail dealers in milk in Glasgow. The other appellant Arthur Gilmour is their secretary.
The respondent farms, as a commercial undertaking, the Home Farm of Dalzell under the Dalzell Trustees. Upon this farm he has installed a herd of cows, and for some years prior to 31st May 1929 he supplied milk to the appellants for their retail business, and obtained a licence for the sale of this milk as "Certified Milk" within the meaning of the Milk and Dairies Act of 1922. The milk so sold to the appellants as "Certified Milk" was by them sold to their customers under the same title, they having obtained the necessary licence. There appears to have been some dispute as to whether this distribution of the milk was carried out on the respondent's behalf, or whether it was sold retail on the appellants' behalf to their various customers. For the purpose of this appeal this dispute is not material.
On 11th May 1929 the appellants, by a letter of that date, informed the respondent that no further supplies of his milk would be required after 31st May 1929, "as one of our own shareholders is now in a position to supply our customers," and on 24th May wrote thanking the pursuer "for the most excellent services rendered by you during the time you
have supplied us." Upon receiving this letter the respondent, on the 26th May 1929, prepared a notice in the following terms:—
"IMPORTANT NOTICE.
"DALZELL CERTIFIED MILK.
"Users of the Certified Milk produced at Dalzell Home Farm are advised that this milk will not be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lord Hamilton v Glasgow Dairy Company
...S. C. 455, followed. Stewart v. StewartUNKSC, (1906) 8 F. 769, commented on and distinguished. (Reportedante, 1930 S. C. 683, and 1931 S. C. (H. L.) 67.) Lord Hamilton of Dalzell brought an action against (first) the Glasgow Dairy Company, Limited, 8 Ashley Street, Glasgow, and (second) Art......