Pedley v Cambridge Newspapers Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE DANCKWERTS |
| Judgment Date | 29 April 1964 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1964] EWCA Civ J0429-2 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
| Date | 29 April 1964 |
[1964] EWCA Civ J0429-2
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
From Mr. Justice Marshall
The Master Of The Rolls
(Lord Denning) and
Lord Justice Danckwerts
MR DESMOND ACKNER, Q.C. and MR H.T. HOOLAHAN (instructed by Messrs Oswald Hickson Collier & Co.) appeared as Counsel for the Appellants.
MR DAVID HIRST (instructed by Messrs Vizard Oldham Crowder & Cash, Agents for Messrs Wild Hewitson & Shaw (Cambridge)) appeared as Counsel for the Respondent.
This case raises an interesting point of practice. The plaintiff, Mr Pedley, brings an action for libel against the proprietors of a newspaper, the Saffron Walden Weekly News. He says in his statement of claim that he is the managing director of a furniture business. He is also an expert on trees and timber matters. He was in 1963 the owner of a piece of land near the station at Saffron Walden where there were 22 very fine lime trees. They were lopped on his instructions so that they were only 18 to 20 ft. high. On the 10th May 1963 the Saffron Walden Weekly News published some letters from correspondents under the heading "South Road Lime Trees". The statement of claim in the action sets out those letters in full. In one of the letters the writer described the conduct of the person, whoever it was it does not name the person who cut down the trees as "an act of vandalism". The writer of the other letter said he had understood the trees were to be preserved and he asked how it came about that they were cut down.
Mr Pedley put his complaint in three ways: first, he said that the words were defamatory of him in their natural and ordinary meaning; because they accused him of "an act of vandalism". But, as he was not mentioned by name, this complaint needs to be supported by proof of some extrinsic fact, as for instance by proof that he was the owner of the land and was able to control the cutting of the trees. It is in strictness a case where the words are rendered libellous by an innuendo. Second, he said that the words bore another innuendo, namely, that he was an incompetent tree expert. This needs proof of the extrinsic fact that he was an expert on trees. Third, he said that the words bore a third innuendo, namely, that he was in breach of a regulation of the Essex County Council for the preservation of trees. This needs proof of the extrinsic fact that there was a prohibition against interference with trees except with the consent of the Council. Inview of these three innuendoes, it may be said that the statement of claim contained three separate causes of action, one for each innuendo, see Grubb v. British United Press. 1963, 1 Queen's Bench, p. 305. The point that arises is this: the defendants wish to make a payment into Court, but they wish to make one entire payment for the whole libel and not three separate payments for the three separate causes of action. If this were any ordinary Kind of action - not libel or slander - the defendants could under the new practice undoubtedly have made one entire payment into Court in respect of all the causes of action. That is clear from the new Order 22, rule 1 which came into force at the beginning of this year. But actions for libel or slander are different. They are still governed by the old practice. The new Order 82, rule 4 deals with libel and slander...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hayward v Thompson
...court (see Weber v. Birkett (1925) 1 King's Bench 720). I prefer to adopt the reasoning of my Lord the Master of the Rolls in Pedley v. Cambridge Newspapers (1964) 1 Weekly Law Reports 988 in which Lewis was cited. At pages 981–2 he said: 135 "If you look at the substance of the claim apart......
-
Zipporah Lisle-Mainwaring v Associated Newspapers Ltd (First Defendant) Kathryn Knight (Second Defendant)
...court has a discretion to compensate the claimant by a single award of damages: see eg Hayward v Thompson [2982] 1 QB 47 and Pedley v Cambridge Newspapers Ltd [1964] 1 WLR 988. In the present case the articles were published only days apart and they substantially overlap. In my judgment, a ......
-
Goh Chok Tong v Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin
...for which separate awards of damages may be made, or for which a single award of damages may be made: Pedley v Cambridge Newspapers Ltd [1964] 1 WLR 988. Where a plaintiff seeks to rely on innuendo, as does the plaintiff in this case, it is necessary to plead precisely the innuendo meaning ......
- Reader's Digest Services Pty Ltd v Lamb