| dc.contributor.author | Geach, Neal | |
| dc.contributor.editor | Geach, Neal | |
| dc.contributor.editor | Monaghan, Christopher | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2012-08-21T14:00:42Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2012-08-21T14:00:42Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2012 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | Geach , 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.isbn | 978-0-490084-8 | |
| dc.identifier.isbn | 0854900845 | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/2299/8922 | |
| dc.description.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. | en |
| dc.format.extent | 14 | |
| dc.language.iso | eng | |
| dc.publisher | Wildy, Simmons and Hill | |
| dc.relation.ispartof | Dissenting Judgments in the Law | |
| dc.subject | Tort, Defamation, Corporations, Standing, Jameel | |
| dc.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 | en |
| dc.contributor.institution | Law | |
| dc.contributor.institution | Office of the Vice-Chancellor | |
| dc.contributor.institution | Centre for Future Societies Research | |
| dc.contributor.institution | Centre for Learning, Access and Student Success | |
| dc.description.status | Non peer reviewed | |
| rioxxterms.type | Other | |
| herts.preservation.rarelyaccessed | true | |
