Nevill v Fine Arts and General Insurance Company

IN 1892 the appellant became agent to the respondents, and conducted the agency at his own offices, 27, Charles Street, St. James'. After some months the appellant told the respondents that he desired better terms, and a correspondence passed between them on the subject. In December 1893 the respondents' secretary wrote to the appellant that the board had come to the decision to terminate the agreement with him. An alteration of the terms was made and the appellant continued to act at his offices as agent for the respondents, and a correspondence ensued as to terms for the future. On March 13 1894, in answer to a question as to the appellant's intentions, his solicitor wrote to the respondents' secretary that the appellant wished to sever all connection with the company, as he did not consider the terms they had offered would justify him in continuing. On March 15 the following circular was sent by the respondents' secretary to certain persons who transacted insurance business with the company through the appellant's office: —

“28 Cornhill, London,

“15th March, 1894.

“Dear

“In forwarding the enclosed renewal notice, I beg to inform you that the West End office of this Company has been opened at 19 St. James' Street, S.W., under Mr. Murray Faulkner.

“The agency of Lord William Nevill at 27 Charles Street, St. James' Square, has been closed by the Directors. I shall therefore be obliged if you will kindly direct all communications to our West End Secretary at 19 Saint James' Street, and I shall at all times be pleased to afford you any assistance in all matters relating to insurance against fire, burglary, accident, employers' liability and all risk.

“Yours faithfully,

(Sd.) Claude G. Hay, Secretary.”

The clerk who drafted the circular was called as a witness at the trial and testified that his first draft stated that the appellant had resigned his agency to the company, that the secretary was displeased with those words and told him to prepare another draft stating that the directors had closed the agency, the secretary saying that his object was to induce the appellant's clients who had hitherto insured through him to continue insuring directly with the company.

The appellant brought an action of libel against the respondents upon the circular, alleging in the statement of claim that the statement about the agency was untrue; and (alternatively) alleging that the statement meant that the appellant had been dismissed by the respondents from his employment as their agent for some reason discreditable to him.

Pollock B., before whom the action was tried, ruled that the circular coupled with the circumstances under which it was published was capable of a defamatory meaning, but that the occasion was privileged, and asked the jury — (1.) whether it was a libel; (2.) whether the respondents published it falsely and maliciously; (3.) whether the words meant that the appellant had been dismissed for some reason discreditable to him. The jury found that it was a libel and assessed the damages at 100l., but could not agree as to the second and third questions. In answer to further questions by the learned Baron, the jury found — (1.) that the statement made by the respondents that “the agency of Lord William Nevill has been closed by the directors “was not true; (2.) that in making that statement the respondents had exceeded the privileged occasion which entitled them to give a notice with regard to the agency being at an end. On further consideration Pollock B. entered judgment for the plaintiff for 100l. The Court of Appeal (Lord Esher M.R., Lopes and Rigby L.JJ.) set aside the verdict and judgment and entered judgment for the defendants.^F1 The plaintiff brought this appeal.