South Hetton Coal Company v North-Eastern News Association Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 1894 |
| Date | 1894 |
| Year | 1894 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
Defamation - Libel - Action for, by Joint Stock Company - Corporation - Statement affecting Business Reputation of Trading Corporation - Special Damage, Absence of.
An action of libel will lie at the suit of an incorporated trading company in respect of a libel calculated to injure its reputation in the way of its business, without proof of special damage.
The sanitary condition of a large number of cottages let by the proprietors of a colliery to their workmen is a matter of public interest, fair comment on which is not libellous.
APPLICATION by defendants for judgment or a new trial.
The plaintiffs, a company registered under the Companies Acts, which owned collieries at South Hetton, in the county of Durham, with a number of cottages in connection therewith, forming the bulk of the village, sued the defendants, who were the proprietors of a newspaper called the North-Eastern Gazette, for a libel published in their newspaper. The alleged libel was an article in the defendants' newspaper, which appeared to be one of a series descriptive of colliery villages in the county. It was headed “The Homes of the Pitmen,” “South Hetton,” “By our Special Correspondent.” It stated at the commencement that the South Hetton colliery belonged to the plaintiffs' company, and then proceeded to give a lengthy and detailed description of the condition of the various streets in the village of South Hetton and of the houses therein, the general effect being to describe the village as in a highly insanitary state, and the houses as, for the most part, being unfit for habitation, from absence of proper and decent conveniences, inadequate accommodation for the occupants, and want of sufficient water supply.F1 The statement of claim alleged that by the libel the defendants intended that the plaintiffs' property was insanitary and unhealthy and unfit for habitation, and that the plaintiffs' company was guilty of neglect of its workmen, and failed in a manner, which was unjustifiable and discreditable, to provide for such workmen fit and proper houses, with fit and proper sanitary conveniences, and that the plaintiffs' company was not such a master as workmen could or should serve, and that by reason of the premises the plaintiffs' company had been injured in its credit and reputation, and had suffered damage. No special damage was alleged.
At the trial before Lord Coleridge, C.J., at Newcastle, it appeared that the plaintiffs were either owners or tenants of the bulk of the houses in the village described in the article, which were occupied by the colliers employed by them as part of their wages. It appeared that the population of the village was over 2000. A great deal of evidence was given on both sides, which was in many respects more or less conflicting, with regard to the accuracy or otherwise of the details of the description given by the article.F2
No actual damage was proved by the plaintiffs.
The Lord Chief Justice ruled that the matter discussed in the article was a matter of public interest, and in substance left it to the jury to say whether the article went beyond the limits of fair and bonâ fide comment. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiffs for 25l. damages.
Oct. 26, 28, 30. Robson, Q.C., and Scott Fox, for the defendants. A joint stock company cannot bring an action in respect of a statement concerning it unless the statement relates to its business and actual pecuniary damage is proved. It has no feelings which may be hurt or irritated; and it has no moral character which can be defamed. An action for libel or slander in the proper sense of the term will not lie by a corporation or company, because such an action is for defamation of character, and a corporation or company has no personal character. The only action of this nature that will lie at the suit of a corporation is really an action on the case for malicious statements with regard to its property or business, which have occasioned actual damage to it, in the nature of an action for slander of title; and the damage is the gist of the action: Metropolitan Saloon Omnibus Co. v. HawkinsF3; Mayor, &c., of Manchester v. WilliamsF4; Ratcliffe v. Evans.F5 In this case no special damage was proved.
Secondly, the article complained of cannot be said to relate to the plaintiffs' business. Nor is it calculated to injure their business. The effect of the article may be, if the statements are true, to impute inhumanity in the treatment of employés, but of that the company as a corporate entity cannot be guilty. Such an imputation is not likely to affect the sale of the company's coal or its profits.
Thirdly, the matter to which the article related was matter of public interest, having regard to the size of the area and the amount of the population involved, the effect of the state of things described upon the sanitation of the district, and its bearing upon the mode in which the sanitary authority of the district performed their duties. Therefore it might be made the subject of fair comment. It is contended that having regard to what was proved at the trial there was substantially no evidence entitling the jury to find that this article went beyond the limits of fair comment.
Waddy, Q.C., and Lawson Walton, Q.C. (T. Willes Chitty, with them), for the plaintiffs. It is true that in some respects a corporation is not capable of defamation, but it is capable of being defamed in respect of its business character. It is well settled that an action of libel will lie at the suit of a partnership for defamatory statements calculated to injure it in the way of its trade or business: see Lindley on Partnership, 6th ed., p. 288; Story on Partnership, ss. 256, 257; Odgers' Libel and Slander, 2nd ed., pp. 415, 416; and there is no difference in principle in this respect between an unincorporated firm and a trade corporation. This libel was calculated seriously to injure the plaintiffs in the way of their business by preventing men from entering into their employment. In Metropolitan Saloon Omnibus Co. v. HawkinsF6 Pollock, C.B., gives the reason why in some cases an action of libel will not lie at the suit of a company, viz., that they are not capable of being guilty of certain matters such as murder or adultery; but he held that in other cases such an action would lie. It is true that he used words which may seem to limit the right of a company to sue for libel to cases where their property is injured; but it is submitted that, so far, what he said was merely obiter, and by way of illustration. In that case there was really nothing that amounted to an allegation of special damage. In none of the cases in which partners have sued for defamation has it been held that special damage must be shewn in order to support the action. The onus is on the defendant to shew that the right to recover is limited to cases in which special damage is alleged and proved. In Russell v. WebsterF7 it was held that co-proprietors of a newspaper might maintain an action for a libel upon them in their business without proving special damage. In Williams v. BeaumontF8 the action was for a libel on a partnership, and it was not suggested that special damage had been shewn. In Le Fanu v. MalcolmsonF9 the libel was a complaint of the way in which the plaintiffs treated people employed in their factory. The action was brought by the partners jointly, and no special damage was alleged or proved.
In 2 Wms. Saund., 5th ed., p. 117a, ed. 1871, p. 383, there is a general statement of the law on the subject of actions by partners for libel or slander in the notes to Coryton v. Lithebye, which concludes as follows: “Though there was special damage laid in the declaration in this case, yet if words are actionable only because they were spoken of persons in the way of their trade, I conceive that two or more partners may join in an action for the words, though they had sustained no special damage thereby.” In Metropolitan Saloon Omnibus Co. v. HawkinsF6 Watson, B., pointed out that there is no distinction for this purpose between partnerships and incorporated companies and joint stock companies.
If the conclusion be once arrived at that an action of defamation will lie in respect of statements with regard to the business character of a corporation, then it follows that there is no need to prove special damage; for in the case of libel general damages can always be given; and in the case of slander, either of a person or a partnership, in the way of trade or business, it is unnecessary to shew special damage: and, therefore, it cannot be necessary to shew it in the case of a libel on a company in the way of their business.
The libel here complained of was an attack on the business reputation of the company. The article did not relate to a matter of public interest. There was evidence to support the finding of the jury that it went beyond the limits of fair comment.
[They cited Thomas v. WilliamsF10; Thorley's Cattle Food Co. v. MassamF11; Prudential Assurance Co. v. KnottF12; Mayor, &c., of Manchester v. WilliamsF13; Ratcliffe v. EvansF14; Hill v. Hart DavisF15; Liverpool Household Stores Association v. SmithF16; Bonnard v. PerrymanF17; Quartz Hill Consolidated Gold Mining Co. v. Eyre.F18]
Robson, Q.C., in reply. The law implies damage, no doubt, in the case of defamation of character by libel. But a corporation has no character in the sense necessary to an action of libel. Moreover, this article made no statements in relation...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
London Artists Ltd v Littler; Grade Organisation Ltd v Littler; Associated Television Ltd v Littler; Grade v Littler
...or to others; then it is a matter of public interest on which everyone is entitled to make fair comment. A good example is South Hetton Coal Co. v. North Eastern News (1894 1 Q.B, 133). A colliery company owned most of the cottages in the village. It was held that the sanitary condition of ......
-
Jameel and Others v Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl
...prove special damage in order to succeed. Proof of injury to his reputation is enough. 13 It was argued in South Hetton Coal Company Limited v North-Eastern News Association Limited [1894] 1 QB 133 that this rule did not apply to trading companies. The newspaper in that case had published ......
-
Drummond-Jackson v British Medical Association
...403.The best statement of the principle is (as one has learnt to expect) contained in a judgment of Lord Esher. In South Hetton Coal Co. v. North Eastern News Association (1894) 1 Q. B. 133 at page 139 he said: "Suppose the plaintiff was a merchant who dealt in wine and it was stated that ......
- Mak Khuin Weng v Melawangi Sdn Bhd
-
Corporate Defamation: A Perspective on Analyst Reports
...Schatz, Reputation and its Risks, available at: https://hbr.org/2007/02/reputation-and-its-risks. [2] South Hetton Coal v. NE News [1894] 1 QB 133. [3] National Union of General and Municipal Workers v Gillian, [1946] KB 81. [4] Jameel v. Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl, (2006) 4 All ER 127......
-
Table of Cases
...Catchment Board [1[1949] 2 All ER 179, 93 SJ 525, CA 85–87, 98 South Hetton Coal Company Ltd v North-Eastern News Association Ltd [1894] 1 QB 133, [1891–1894] All ER Rep 548, 63 LJQB 293, CA 61–64, 66, 68, 72 Southern Water Authority v Carey [1985] 2 All ER 1077, 27 Build LR 111, [1985] 1 C......
-
Table of Cases
...[1975] 1 WLR 1587, [1975] 2 All ER 282, 119 Sol Jo 760, ChD 138, 139, 150 South Hetton Coal Co Ltd v North-Eastern News Association Ltd [1894] 1 QB 133, 58 JP 196, 63 LJQB 293, CA 45 Southern v Borax Consolidated Ltd [1940] 4 All ER 412, (1940) 23 TC 597, KBD 198 Stead v Salt (1825) 3 Bing ......
-
Dead loss: damages for posthumous breach of the moral right of integrity.
...maintain an action for defamation of its trading or business reputation: South Hetton Coal Co Ltd v North-Eastern News Association Ltd [1894] 1 QB 133. The uniform defamation Acts now significantly narrow the circumstances in which corporations may sue for defamation: Defamation Act 2005 (N......
-
Libel: Its Purpose and Reform
...the government chose, at least initially, to169 Thornton vTelegraph Media Group Ltd [2011] EWHC 1884 (QB) (26 July 2011).170 [1894] 1 QB 133.171 The restrictions might not, however, be that tight as long as some form of attribution rule isavailable.See Meridian Global Funds Management Asia ......