Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

36. He refers to the case reported in Maynard's Long Quinto that for bringing a suit manifestly wrongful, to the defendant's own knowledge, an action might be maintained.

37. He refers to a case of Sir G. Gerard v. Dickenson [1590] 4 Co. Rep. 18a where the defendant had brought a suit alleging against her own knowledge that a certain lease, which was a forgery and which she knew was a forgery gave her title to the land. It is clear from his judgment that the furthest limit to which Blackburn, J., was prepared to go was that if a man sue me in a proper Court, yet if his suit be utterly without ground of truth, and that certainly known to himself, I may have an action of the case against him for the undue vexation and damage that he putteth me unto by his ill practice.

39. In the judgment of Lord Cave, L.C., in Sorrell v. Smith [1925] A.C.700, it is stated in effect that there is some authority for the view, that it is actionable for one person wilfully to injure a man in his trade if damage results to him. This, however, is guarded by a proviso to the effect that if the real purpose is not to injure another, but to forward or defend one's own trade, then no wrong is committed and no action will lie, although damage to another ensues. Of malice the Lord Chancellor stated this:

50. On the hearing of this appeal it appeared to us that this part of the case, as presented by the pleadings, was not at the time of the trial in a fit condition to be tried and that it would be as well to require a statement from the plaintiff of particulars of those slanders which he claimed to have proved. Accordingly particulars were filed alleging 13 several publications, five of which were in our opinion afterthoughts in no way within para. 11 of the plaint and dealt with neither by cross-examination nor by the learned Judge as substantive counts in the case. The attempt made was intelligible in view of the plaintiff's difficulties as to limitation. These five new counts are based upon letters and the charge is that the defendant company published them to their typists and staff, to the Collector of Customs and the Imperial Bank. It seems reasonably clear that neither counsel nor the learned Judge at the trial was aware that they were assisting at the investigation of any such case. In my opinion these counts must be disallowed altogether. They appear to amount to be a contention that for the defendant company even to claim that the plaintiff's goods infringed their trade-mark rights was an actionable wrong.