Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T04:26:36.604Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Moot Case on Defamation1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2009

C. J. Hamson
Get access

Extract

The following judgment was delivered:—

The facts of the cases now before us, which have been consolidated for the purpose of this hearing, fall within a narrow, perhaps too narrow, compass.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Cambridge Law Journal , Volume 10 , Issue 1 , March 1948 , pp. 46 - 53
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge Law Journal and Contributors 1948

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

2 Morris v. Langdale (1800), 2 Bos, & P. 284, but compare Barnett v. Allen (1858), 3 H. & N. 376.

3 Sim v. Stretch, [1936] 2 All E.R. 1237, 1240, H.L.

4 National Service (Armed Forces) Act, 1939, s. 5.

5 Lord Camrose v. Action Press Ltd., Argus Press Ltd, and John Beckett, 1936 C. No. 1252. Times Newspaper, Oct. 14, 15, 16, 1937. Hilbery, J. and a special jury. And see Burns v. Associated Newspapers (1925), 42 T.L.R. 37, Astbury, J.

5a A strong Court of Appeal (Greene, M.R., Asquith and Evershed, L.JJ.) has very recently held in Braddock v. Bevins, [1948] 1 All E.R. 450, that the following words were capable of a defamatory meaning as an attack upon the political sincerity and political integrity of the plaintiff: ‘I am horrified that the Socialist M.P. for this division… should persistently take sides with the Soviet Government and the British Communist Party”.

6 [1937] 1 K.B. 818, C.A., Greer, L.J. dissenting.

7 See particularly [1937] 1 K.B. at p. 841.

8 See Youssoupoff v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures, Ltd. (1934), 50 T.L.R. 581, C.A.

9 Textbook, 3rd ed., p. 237–8.Google Scholar

10 10th ed., by Dr. Stallybrass, p. 371.

11 14th ed., by P. A. L. Landon, p. 188 n.

12 Forrester v. Tyrrell (1893), 9 T.L.R. 257, C.A.

13 Meldrum v. Australian Broadcasting Co., Ltd., 1932, Vict, L. R. 425, and see 51 L.Q.R. 573.

14 Collected in 46 Harvard Law Review 133

15 The Times Newspaper, Oct. 8, 1940.Google Scholar

16 Cf. Holdsworth, 8 H.E.L. at p. 367.

17 Gatley on Libel and Slander, 3rd ed., p. 61.Google Scholar

18 [1916] 2 A.C. 481.

19 Ib. id., at p. 493–4.

20 [1916] 2 A.C. 481.

21 (1937), 54 T.L.R. 289, 291, C.A.

22 Compare Knupffer v. London Express Newspapers, [1944] A.C. 116.