Do Corporations Have an Immortal Part? The Need to Prove Damage in Corporate Libel: Baroness Hale's Dissent in Jameel v Wall Street Journal Sprl [2006] UKHL 44

Neal Geach

Do Corporations Have an Immortal Part? The Need to Prove Damage in Corporate Libel: Baroness Hale's Dissent in Jameel v Wall Street Journal Sprl [2006] UKHL 44

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding › Chapter (peer-reviewed)

Abstract

Argues that the opinion of Baroness Hale in the case of Jameel v Wall Street Journal Sprl [2006] UKHL 44 should have prevailed in the case so that corporations have to prove special damage, or the likelihood of it occurring, in order to succeed in a defamation case. It is argued that this would be a small, but important, change in the law which would create fairness between the parties.

Original language	English
Title of host publication	Dissenting Judgments in the Law
Editors	Neal Geach, Christopher Monaghan
Publisher	Wildy, Simmons and Hill
Pages	61-75
Number of pages	14
ISBN (Print)	978-0-490084-8, 0854900845
Publication status	Published - 2012

Keywords

Tort, Defamation, Corporations, Standing, Jameel

Cite this

@inbook{5497b20c41194257ac95f0c23e7c974b,

title = "Do Corporations Have an Immortal Part? The Need to Prove Damage in Corporate Libel: Baroness Hale's Dissent in Jameel v Wall Street Journal Sprl [2006] UKHL 44",

abstract = "Argues that the opinion of Baroness Hale in the case of Jameel v Wall Street Journal Sprl [2006] UKHL 44 should have prevailed in the case so that corporations have to prove special damage, or the likelihood of it occurring, in order to succeed in a defamation case. It is argued that this would be a small, but important, change in the law which would create fairness between the parties. ",

keywords = "Tort, Defamation, Corporations, Standing, Jameel",

author = "Neal Geach",

year = "2012",

language = "English",

isbn = "978-0-490084-8",

pages = "61--75",

editor = "Geach, \{Neal \} and Monaghan, \{Christopher \}",

booktitle = "Dissenting Judgments in the Law",

publisher = "Wildy, Simmons and Hill",

}

Do Corporations Have an Immortal Part? The Need to Prove Damage in Corporate Libel: Baroness Hale's Dissent in Jameel v Wall Street Journal Sprl [2006] UKHL 44. / Geach, Neal.
Dissenting Judgments in the Law. ed. / Neal Geach; Christopher Monaghan. Wildy, Simmons and Hill, 2012. p. 61-75.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding › Chapter (peer-reviewed)

TY - CHAP

T1 - Do Corporations Have an Immortal Part? The Need to Prove Damage in Corporate Libel

T2 - Baroness Hale's Dissent in Jameel v Wall Street Journal Sprl [2006] UKHL 44

AU - Geach, Neal

PY - 2012

Y1 - 2012

N2 - Argues that the opinion of Baroness Hale in the case of Jameel v Wall Street Journal Sprl [2006] UKHL 44 should have prevailed in the case so that corporations have to prove special damage, or the likelihood of it occurring, in order to succeed in a defamation case. It is argued that this would be a small, but important, change in the law which would create fairness between the parties.

AB - Argues that the opinion of Baroness Hale in the case of Jameel v Wall Street Journal Sprl [2006] UKHL 44 should have prevailed in the case so that corporations have to prove special damage, or the likelihood of it occurring, in order to succeed in a defamation case. It is argued that this would be a small, but important, change in the law which would create fairness between the parties.

KW - Tort, Defamation, Corporations, Standing, Jameel

M3 - Chapter (peer-reviewed)

SN - 978-0-490084-8

SN - 0854900845

SP - 61

EP - 75

BT - Dissenting Judgments in the Law

A2 - Geach, Neal

A2 - Monaghan, Christopher

PB - Wildy, Simmons and Hill

ER -

Do Corporations Have an Immortal Part? The Need to Prove Damage in Corporate Libel: Baroness Hale's Dissent in Jameel v Wall Street Journal Sprl [2006] UKHL 44

Abstract

Keywords

Fingerprint

Cite this