Mit der Escape-Taste kann das Fenster geschlossen werden.

JJ.) [1992] QB 770 allowing an appeal by the defendants, Times Newspapers Ltd, Andrew Neil, the editor of "The Sunday Times," and Rosemary Collins and Peter Hounam, two of the newspaper's journalists, from the order of Morland J. In exercising its powers and carrying out its functions as a county council, the plaintiff has a reputation that is distinct from that of its individual members or officers. It is not necessary for the corporation to prove actual damage: South Hetton Coal Co Ltd v North-Eastern News Association Ltd [1894] 1 QB 133. The need for a local authority to be able to sue for libel to protect its reputation is a real and pressing one. The plaintiffs cannot rely on section 222(1) of the Local Government Act 1972, since their proceedings are not capable of promoting or protecting the interests of the inhabitants of Derbyshire generally and they constitute an unnecessary interference with free expression. There is no legal aid and proceedings are notoriously costly. Lord Keith of Kinkel: My Lords, this appeal raises, as a preliminary issue in an action of damages for libel, the question whether a local authority is entitled to maintain an action in libel for words which reflect on it in its governmental and administrative functions.

[1992] QB 770 holding, on a preliminary issue, that the plaintiff could maintain a cause of action in libel against the defendants in respect of articles in issues of "The Sunday Times" dated 17 and 24 September 1989. At common law trading corporations can sue for libel: Metropolitan Saloon Ombibus Co Ltd v Hawkins (1859) 4 H. Non-trading corporations can also sue: National Union of General and Municipal Workers v Gillian [1946] KB 81. Damage to its reputation may make it more difficult for the authority to borrow money or tender for contracts, and may disaffect its staff or deter participation in its pension scheme. The plaintiff does not have to prove his claim beyond reasonable doubt. That is the way the preliminary point of law was expressed in the order of the master, but it has opened out into an investigation of whether a local authority can sue for libel at all.

Beginn eines Dialogfensters, einschließlich Registerkartennavigation, um ein Konto zu registrieren oder sich bei einem bestehenden Konto einzuloggen.

Sowohl für die Registrierung als auch zum Einloggen können Google- und Facebook-Konten verwendet werden.

Further, a partnership (which does not have a separate legal personality) is entitled to sue in its own name for damage done to its reputation: Le Fanu v Malcolmson (1848) 1 H. [Reference was also made to City of Prince George v British Columbia Television System Ltd (1978) 85 D. 8969) should not be used to determine what the common law is, or to resolve any uncertainty in the common law; in fact, however, English domestic law is consistent with article 10. Thus, a local authority has to show that a defamatory article in a newspaper refers to it as such, not just to individuals associated with it. The articles in the issue of 17 September were headed 'Revealed: Socialist tycoon's deals with a Labour chief' and 'Bizarre deals of a council leader and the media tycoon:' that in the issue of 24 September was headed 'Council share deals under scrutiny.' The council leader was Mr David Melvyn Bookbinder; the 'media tycoon' was Mr Owen Oyston.

It is accepted that the precepts underlying the Convention may be looked at to decide whether the public interest in freedom of information should prevail over the right to protect one's reputation. v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Brind [1991] 1 AC 696, 760.] But regard should be had to the fact that the right to freedom of expression under the Convention is not unlimited. The newspaper only has to prove the "sting" of the libel, not every single allegation. It is unnecessary for the purposes of this judgement to set out in any detail the contents of these articles: it is sufficient to say that they question the propriety of certain investments made by the council of moneys in its superannuation fund, with Mr Bookbinder as the prime mover, in three deals with Mr Oyston or companies controlled by him.

A non-malicious publication may cause just as much damage as a malicious one. Such bodies would be able to wield the very sharp sword of libel proceedings to deter or suppress public criticism and information about what they do as the people's representatives and public servants. 254 and Die Spoorbond v South African Railways, 1946 A. The fundamental human right to free expression is an essential feature of citizenship and of representative democracy. The first is Manchester Corporation v Williams [1891] 1 QB 94, 63 LT 805.

If a local authority has a right to sue for libel at common law, only Parliament, not the courts, can take away that right: see Dennis v United States of America (1951) 341 U. They could do so using public funds and knowing that an ordinary individual citizen could not afford access to justice to defend his freedom of political expression against such a claim. The plaintiffs seek to extend the tort of libel well beyond the ambit of the criminal offence of seditious libel, which is designed to protect the government and the public against scurrilous and extreme attacks upon the Crown or government institutions: see Reg v Chief Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, Ex parte Choudhury [1991] 1 QB 529. It is a basic principle of the unwritten British Constitution, protected by the common law. The defendant had written a letter to a newspaper alleging that "in the case of two, if not three, departments of our Manchester City Council, bribery and corruption have existed, and done their nefarious work." A Divisional Court consisting of Day J and Lawrance J held that the statement of claim disclosed no cause of action.

Millionaire is a place for like-minded people who understand that intelligence, success and drive are key elements to attraction.

Members are looking for partners based on lifestyle and physical chemistry as well as personal beliefs and common interests.

Close scrutiny of possible threats to fundamental freedoms is called for: Reg. The press is not above the law or entitled to some special privilege or immunity not enjoyed by the individual citizen: it has no greater or fewer rights than does the citizen for whom it is the surrogate. (4th) 577 and Retail, Wholesale Department Store Union, Local 850 v Dolphin Delivery Ltd (1986) 33 D. A corporation may sue for a libel affecting property, not for one merely affecting personal reputation. There must, therefore, be judgement for the defendant."Lawrance J said that he was of the same opinion.