Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorGeach, Neal
dc.contributor.editorGeach, Neal
dc.contributor.editorMonaghan, Christopher
dc.date.accessioned2012-08-21T14:00:42Z
dc.date.available2012-08-21T14:00:42Z
dc.date.issued2012
dc.identifier.citationGeach , N 2012 , 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 . in N Geach & C Monaghan (eds) , Dissenting Judgments in the Law . Wildy, Simmons and Hill , pp. 61-75 .
dc.identifier.isbn978-0-490084-8
dc.identifier.isbn0854900845
dc.identifier.otherPURE: 932346
dc.identifier.otherPURE UUID: 5497b20c-4119-4257-ac95-f0c23e7c974b
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2299/8922
dc.description.abstractArgues 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.en
dc.format.extent14
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherWildy, Simmons and Hill
dc.relation.ispartofDissenting Judgments in the Law
dc.subjectTort, Defamation, Corporations, Standing, Jameel
dc.titleDo 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 44en
dc.contributor.institutionHertfordshire Law School
dc.contributor.institutionSocial Sciences, Arts & Humanities Research Institute
dc.contributor.institutionLaw
dc.description.statusNon peer reviewed
rioxxterms.typeOther
herts.preservation.rarelyaccessedtrue


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record