Russell v Stubbs Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 03 April 1913 |
| Date | 03 April 1913 |
| Docket Number | No. 5. |
| Court | House of Lords |
Ld. Chancellor (Haldane), Lord Kinnear, Lord Shaw of Dunfermline, Lord Atkinson.
ReparationSlanderInnuendoNewspaperTrade publicationList of decrees in absenceErroneous entryImputation of insolvency.
An issue of a trade journal known as Stubbs' Weekly Gazette contained a list headed Extracts from the Court Books of Decrees in absence in the Small-Debt Courts. Note.It is probable that some of the decrees have been sisted, settled, or paid; and in no case does publication of the decree imply inability to pay on the part of anyone named, or anything more than the fact that the entry published appeared in the Court books.
In an action of damages for slander against the proprietors of the journal at the instance of a tradesman, whose name was erroneously included in the list in respect of a decree for 9, 19s. 6d., the facts being that the debt had been paid and the action dismissed, the Lord Ordinary approved of an issue in which the pursuer innuendoed the entry as falsely and calumniously representing that he was unable to pay his debts.
Held (rev. judgment of the Second Division) that the entry, when read in conjunction with the explanatory note, would not bear the innuendo suggested, and that the issue fell to be disallowed.
Crabbe & Robertson v. Stubbs, LimitedSC, (1895) 22 R. 860, and Hunter & Co. v. Stubbs, LimitedSC, (1903) 5 F. 920, considered.
(In the Court of Session, 29th May 1912.)
On 27th December 1911 John Russell, wholesale and retail furnisher and general ironmonger, 28 Quarry Street, Hamilton, brought an action of damages for slander against Stubbs, Limited, incorporated under the Companies Acts, and having their principal office at 42 Gresham Street, London. E.C., and carrying on business at 116 St Vincent Street, Glasgow.
The pursuer averred, inter alia:(Cond. 2) The defenders are the proprietors and publishers of the gazette known as Stubbs' Weekly Gazette. The defenders carry on for profit a business which they describe in their advertisements and prospectuses as a means of enabling traders to avoid making bad debts, and they act as an agency for the recovery of overdue accounts, bills, and rents, &c. The said Stubbs' Weekly Gazette has a wide circulation, which is not confined to the trading community, throughout Scotland, and also in England and Ireland. It has a special portion devoted to the publication of the names and addresses of traders and others by and against whom decrees in absence have been taken. This is popularly known as and called the Black List, and the name of any trader appearing in that list is looked upon with grave suspicion as to solvency by all persons reading the said Gazette or knowing of its contents. Its object is to give information to tradesmen and the mercantile community generally as to bankrupts, insolvents, and defaulters in payment of their just debts and obligations. (Cond. 3) The pursuer, as a part of his business, is a dealer in explosives, and a large part of such business consists in supplying colliery companies and dealers with explosive material and colliery furnishings. One of the companies from whom the pursuer obtained the goods he required was the British Electric Detonator Company, Limited, 43 Castle Street, Liverpool. Questions arose between the pursuer and this company as to the amount of the pursuer's indebtedness, the pursuer maintaining that he had a counter claim which fell to be set off against this company's claim. Ultimately, the British Electric Detonator Company raised an action against the pursuer in the Sheriff Small-Debt Court at Hamilton for payment of the sum of 9, 19s. 6d. On 12th October 1911 the dispute between the pursuer and said company was adjusted, and on said date said sum of 9, 19s. 6d. was paid by the pursuer, and the action was settled. The case was called in ordinary course in the Sheriff Small-Debt Court at Hamilton on 20th October 1911, when, the matter in dispute having been settled as stated, neither party appeared, and the action was dismissed. (Cond. 4) Notwithstanding that the said action had been dismissed as aforesaid the defenders wrongfully, falsely, and calumniously published in the issue of said Stubbs' Weekly Gazette, of date 26th October 1911, under the heading, Extracts from the Court Books of Decrees in Absence in the Small-Debt Courts the following statement:
| Court. | Date. | Pursuers. | Defenders. | Amount in Decree. |
| Hamilton. | Oct. 20th. | British Electric Detonator Co., Ltd., Liverpool. | John Russell, 28 Quarry St. Hamilton. | 9, 19s. 6d. |
This entry is not a correct record from the Court books, nor of what took place in Court, and is of and concerning the pursuer, and is false and calumnious. It falsely represented that a decree in absence had been granted against the pursuer for 9, 19s. 6d., that the pursuer was unable to pay his debts and was in insolvent circumstances and in pecuniary embarrassment, and was evading payment of a just debt, and it was so understood by the public, and in particular by the pursuer's customers and creditors.
The defenders averred, inter alia, in answer:(Ans. 4) The issue of Stubbs' Weekly Gazette, of date 26th October 1911, and the entry therein regarding pursuer are referred to for their terms. Explained that said notice is in a column of the defenders' Gazette to which the following heading is prefixed: Extracts from the Court Books of Decrees in Absence in the Small-Debt Courts. Note.The following extracts from the Court books have been received since our last issue, made up to the several dates given in the second column. It is probable that some of the decrees have been sisted, settled, or paid; and in no case does publication of the decree imply inability to pay on the part of anyone named, or anything more than the fact that the entry published appeared in the Court books. We are willing at all times to insert any authentic information or explanation relative to decrees, or to correct any inaccuracy of record or otherwise. Explained further that said entry is in accordance with the original entry made in the Court book, but it is explained that the entry in the Court book was altered after the entry had been copied by the defenders, and it is admitted that it is not in accordance with the amended entry in said Court book. The original entry had in the column under Interlocutors or Decrees the letter D, which represents Decree. This entry was afterwards amended, and the word Dismissed was substituted for the letter D.Quoad ultra denied. Explained that during the period from February until October 1911 the pursuer has persistently refused or delayed to make payment of the just and lawful debts of his trade creditors, who have repeatedly requested payment from the pursuer of the amounts due, and in consequence of pursuer's failure or refusal to make payment have been compelled to raise actions against him in the Courts. In particular, during said period the following creditors of the pursuer were unable to obtain payment from him of the sums due at their due date, notwithstanding repeated remonstrances, and only obtained payment after actions had been raised in the Sheriff Courts of Lanarkshire, and in some cases after decrees had been pronounced, viz.:[Here followed a list].
The pursuer proposed an issueWhether on or about 26th October 1911 the defenders wrongfully published in the Gazette under the heading quoted in condescendence 4 a statement in the form of the entry quoted in the same condescendence, and whether the statement was of and concerning the pursuer and falsely and calumniously represented that he was unable to pay his debts? No reference was made in the issue to the Note quoted in answer 4.
The defenders proposed a counter issueWhether the pursuer, during the period from February until October 1911, repeatedly refused or delayed to make payment of his just and lawful debts to his trade creditors?
On 28th February 1912 the Lord Ordinary (Hunter) pronounced an interlocutor approving of the issue and disallowing the counter-issue.
The defenders reclaimed, and on 29th May 1912 their Lordships of the Second Division pronounced an interlocutor* refusing the reclaiming note, adhering to the interlocutor reclaimed against, and granting leave to the defenders to appeal to the House of Lords.
The defenders appealed to the House of Lords and the case was heard on 10th February 1913.
Argued for the appellants;The issue ought to have been disallowed because the entry in the Gazette could not bear the innuendo the pursuer sought to put upon it, the test being whether the innuendo represented a reasonable or natural or necessary inference from the words used. It did not. It was not enough to say that some persons might understand the words in a defamatory sense, because, where a statement was capable of bearing a number of good interpretations, it was unreasonable to select the only bad one as having been the one necessarily meant.1 It was out of the question to say that a statement that a small-debt decree in absence had gone out against a tradesman meant, or would necessarily suggest to anyone the meaning, that the tradesman was insolvent, there being many other reasons which might account for the occurrence. The entry referred to one particular debt only, and was not a representation as to the pursuer's general financial position. Accordingly, even if there had been no note prefixed to the list, the pursuer would have failed. The note, however, in express terms disclaimed the interpretation which the pursuer sought to put upon the entry.2Hunter & Company v. Stubbs, LimitedSC,3 was distinguishable from the present case because, firstly, no objection had apparently been taken by the defenders to the issue, and, secondly, because the Court was not concerned with the law as to the adjustment of issues, but was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Dato' Seri Dr Ling Liong Sik v Krishna Kumar s/o Sivasubramaniam
-
Alan Massie V. Callum Mccaig And Others
...language of the statement was one involving an obligation or debt owed by the Labour Party to the pursuer. In terms of Russell v Stubbs 1913 SC (HL) 14 (Lord Shaw at pages 23-24), the reasonable or natural inference to be drawn from the words used was that the Labour councillors had reached......
-
Gordon Coutts Thomson And Mrs. Maria Teresa Thomson V. Sheriff Kenneth Ross And Others
...to find an appropriate innuendo to supplement or correct the deficiencies in the pursuers' pleadings - see Russell v Stubbs Limited 1913 S.C.(H.L.) 14, per Lord Kinnear 22. [45]In relation to the third of the statements attributed to the President by the pursuers - that "they permitted frau......
-
Lord Hamilton v Glasgow Dairy Company
...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 dicta of Viscount Haldane in Langlands v. John Leng & Co.,1916 S. C. (H. L.) 102, ......