CiteTEXT
...House of Lords in E. Hulton and Co. v. Jones(1), came to the conclusion that the intention was not the test of liability so long as the respondent had actually been defamed. In...intend to defame the respondent herein, still they were liable to pay damages for defaming the respondent on the basis of the judgment of the House of Lords in. E. Hulton and Co. v. Jones...by the Court of Appeal as well as the House of Lords.In Jones v. E. Hulton and Co.(2) there was an article in the Sunday Chronicle written by the Paris correspondent...
...others.I shall notice also very shortly, two points referred to by Mr. T. Rangachariar in the course of his argument. He referred to the House of Lords' case in E. Hulton & Co. v.... Jones to support his position that whether the plaintiff was intended or not intended to be attacked, the defendant would be liable if any ordinary reader would reasonably come to that...Court of Appeal) (See Jones v. E. Houlton and Co.), is much more in consonance with justice and equity than the law, as now settled in England on this point. The other point mentioned...
...whether the alleged libel was published with the knowledge that it would apply to the complainant is also of no consequence. Since the decision in E. Hulton and Co. v. Jones (1910 AC 20...
..., speaking for myself, I do not see how the judgments in Jones v. E. Hulton & Co. Ltd. (1909) 2 K. 13. 444 : (1910) A.C. 20 : 78 L.J.K.B...
.... But it is immaterial that the defendants did not intend to refer to the plaintiffs or did not intend to defame them. As held in E. Hulton and Co. v. Jones 1910 AC 20 “in an action...; it is sufficient if those who knew the plaintiff can make out that he is the person meant. As observed by Alverstone C.J in Jones v. Hulton (1909) 2 K.B 444...
...no consequence. Since the decision, in E. Hulton and Co. v. Jones 1910 AC 20 it is impossible for the person publishing a statement which, to those who know certain facts, is capable...
.... The words appear to have been uttered by the defendant with due deliberation in an audible voice and without any regard for the consequences that were to ensue. In E. Hulton and Co. v. Jones...
...on the point, was a civil suit, but that would not appear to affect the principle (vide the observations of Fletcher Moulton, L. J., in Jones v. E. Hulton & Co. [1909] 2. K.B. 444...circumstances would reasonably think to be defamatory of the person complaining of and injured by it [Per Lord Loreburn, L. C, in E. Hulton & Go, v. Jones [1910] A.C. 20]. Lord Shaw...
...think rightly, as it never had much standing in law. It was laid down by the House of Lords in E. Hulton & Co. v. Jones that in cases of defamation of this kind the question of...brought his action as a representative of the other five was entitled to sue. The case also of Jones v. E. Hulton & Co. , to which I have already made reference in another connection...E. Hulton & Co. v. Jones Lord Shaw said:—In the publication of matter of a libellous character, that is, matter which would be libellous if applying to an actual person...
...conclusion that the well-known decision of the Court of appeals in E. Hulton & Co. v. Artemus Jones (1908-10) All ER Reprint 29) (CA) was not relevant to the facts of this case. According....”38. It is also well settled in law that the intention and the knowledge of the author is irrelevant and that is settled by the decision in E. Hulton & Co. v. Jones (1908-10) All ER Re...Morris of Borth-y-Guest in the Privy Council in Jones v. Skelton (1963) 3 All ER 952, has said:“The ordinary and natural meaning of words may be...
...plaintiff was not entitled to particulars sought for. This decision has no relevance in the facts of the present case.17. In “E. Hulton & Co. v. Jones” reported in...
...conclusion that the well-known decision of the Court of appeals in E. Hulton and Co. v. Artemus Jones (1908-10) All ER Reprint 29) (CA) was not relevant to the facts of this case. According...is irrelevant and that is settled by the decision in E. Hulton and Co. v. Jones (1908-10) All ER Re Print 29 (CA) which was cited by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs. But...natural and ordinary meaning. "lord Morris of Borth-y-Guest in the Privy Council in Jones v. Skelton (1963) 3 All ER 952, has said :"the ordinary and natural meaning...
...judgment of the house of lords in rookes v. Barnard, on the ground that lord delvin in hii judgment in rookls case, had overlooked two previous decisions of the house of lords in e. Hulton and co. V. Jones...
...Commissioners v. Adamson (3) [(1877) 2 A.C 743 at p. 763]; Jones v. E. Hulton and Co. (4) [(1909) 2 K.B per Farwell, L.J, at pp. 479, 480]. The only...