The defendants published ‘Stubbs’ Weekly Gazette’ providing credit reports on persons engaged in trade to their subscribers. The plaintiff pleaded that the defendant had published a report as to the plaintiff’s financial position to a named person and to other persons whose names are unknown to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs relied on appeal on an affidavit within which the deponent swore that in a telephone conversation he was told that the defendants had issued a bad report and on request from the plaintiff’s solicitors the defendants had provided to them a copy of a report on the plaintiffs.
Held: The Court restored the order of the Master that the plaintiffs give particulars of the persons to whom the libel was published after discovery. The pleading was not a mere fishing allegation in connection with which they wished to get discovery before going on with the case.
Sir Gorell Barnes, President said: ‘the real question which we have to determine is whether there is anything unreasonable in allowing the plaintiffs to have discovery which will enable them to show that this libel was published to somebody whom they specify or to other persons who have had exactly the same information sent to them by the defendants. Although the point may perhaps not be exactly covered by any of the authorities which have been cited to us and may to some extent be said to be novel, I think that having regard to the position of the parties, the plaintiffs being engaged in a trade and having information given about them by the defendants, whose business it may be to give information of that kind, if it is alleged that that information was given to some specified person or company, but with uncertainty on the part of the plaintiffs as to whether they can clearly establish that it was given to the particular person specified or to some clerk or person connected with the company, there is no hardship on the defendants or unreasonableness in placing the plaintiffs in the position of being able to say, ‘We are going to prove this, and, from the discovery which we expect to get from you, we also intend to prove that you published the report in identical terms at the same time to some other person or persons.’ To my mind that is not unreasonable, and I think it is within the principle which has been discussed and laid down in several of the cases, and I cannot myself see that it inflicts any hardship whatever upon the defendants. They must know perfectly well whether they have published this alleged libel, and to whom, if any one, they have published it, and the allegations in the latter part of paragraph 4 of the statement of claim can present no difficulty or embarrassment to the defendants in framing their defence. They may say that they did not publish the report to any one, or that they did publish it and it is true, or that they only published it to persons on occasions which made it a privileged communication. I cannot see that the defendants will have any difficulty whatever in meeting the plaintiffs’ case, no matter to whom publication was made, provided that it is confined, as the plaintiffs’ counsel have stated in this Court that they are content it should be confined, to publication at the particular time and in the express and particular terms set out in the statement of claim.’
Judges:
Sir Gorell Barnes, P
Citations:
[1913] 2 KB 200
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Russell v Stubbs Limited HL 3-Apr-1913
The plaintiff said that the defendants, publishers of a trade magazine providing inter alia credit references, had slandered it. The defendants appealed against an order requiring it to provide details of others to whom the slander had been . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Defamation, Litigation Practice, Scotland
Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.471571
