9911796707
TMI Blog1930 (1) TMI 13X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... behalf of the other members, and that the incorporation of the association after the publication of the libels does not enable the President of the incorporated association to sue on behalf of the association or of the other members of the association. No direct authority for the first of these propositions has been cited, but it was suggested on high authority in the case of the London Association for the Protection of Trade v. Greenlands, Ltd. [1916] 2 AC 15; 85 LJKB 698; 114 LT 434; 32 TLR 281 that an unincorporated association as such cannot be guilty of libel because "as an entity it could neither publish nor authorise the publication of a libel," and it would seem to follow that as an entity it could not suffer damage by reason ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Jenkins v. John Bull, Ltd. The Times, April 20,1910, where the learned Judge said: "To my mind no representative action can lie where the sole relief sought is damages, because they have to be proved separately in the case of each plaintiff." Respondents on the other hand, rely on the wording of O.I, r. 8 which says that " Where there are numerous persons having the same interest in one suit, one or more of such persons may, with the permission of the Court, sue in such suit on behalf of, or for the benefit of, all persons so interested." The wording of this rule, if it applies to the case, raises the question whether or not all the persons who were members of the unincorporated "Federation" at the time of the publication of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es and of any authority to the contrary in India, I am satisfied that we ought to accept the view taken in Jenkins v. John Bull, Ltd. ( supra p. 188) and hold that the second respondent was not entitled to sue either on behalf of the incorporated "Federation" as in fact he did, or on behalf of those members of the unincorporated "Federation" who were members at the time when the alleged libels were published. On these findings it is unnecessary to consider whether or not the "Federation" as such or the members of the "Federation," who were members at the time of publication of the alleged libels, suffered damage, and all that we need consider is whether the publication constituted a libel on the second respondent, and if so, what mea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Domiciled European Community to be left to its judgment, and that he also said falsely that about six ladies, two or three with babies in their laps, and about ten girls and ten boys attended a meeting of its Committee. I see no reason to doubt that those statements constituted a libel on the persons who were members of the Federation or of its Committee and on the second respondent as a member of the "Federation" and as Chairman of the Committee at the time when the statements were published, but I fail to see how they constituted a separate libel on the second respondent in his personal capacity as distinct from his capacity as a member of the Federation and Chairman of its Committee. What remains is for us to assess the damages w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
