Freedom of expression is an essential feature of citizenship and of representative democracy. The development of a tort of government libel, much more draconian than the crime of seditious libel, would have a chilling effect upon the freedom of expression of newspapers as well as of the individual citizen critic of government. The libel complained of consists of a charge of bribery and corruption. The limits of a corporation's right of action for libel are those suggested by Pollock CB in the case which has been referred to.Close scrutiny of possible threats to fundamental freedoms is called for: Reg. The press is not above the law or entitled to some special privilege or immunity not enjoyed by the individual citizen: it has no greater or fewer rights than does the citizen for whom it is the surrogate. (4th) 577 and Retail, Wholesale Department Store Union, Local 850 v Dolphin Delivery Ltd (1986) 33 D. A corporation may sue for a libel affecting property, not for one merely affecting personal reputation. There must, therefore, be judgement for the defendant."Lawrance J said that he was of the same opinion.Meals are provided or you can cook for yourself if you like.Everyone takes part in life skills training which can include, menu planning, shopping and healthy eating, personal care and medication, money management and social life.If there is a legitimate need for a local authority to protect its reputation, why should its ability to do so depend on whether, fortuitously, it could prove malice. If the council were to succeed in this appeal, any governmental body with corporate status could bring libel proceedings against a newspaper or individual citizen alleged to have defamed its governing reputation. In the United Kingdom there is no Act of Parliament incorporating the guarantee of free speech contained in article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms into domestic law. Subject to the sovereign power of Parliament to intervene by legislation, the common law matches the protection given to free speech by article 10. There are only two reported cases in which an English local authority has sued for libel.A non-malicious publication may cause just as much damage as a malicious one. Such bodies would be able to wield the very sharp sword of libel proceedings to deter or suppress public criticism and information about what they do as the people's representatives and public servants. 254 and Die Spoorbond v South African Railways, 1946 A. The fundamental human right to free expression is an essential feature of citizenship and of representative democracy. The first is Manchester Corporation v Williams  1 QB 94, 63 LT 805.The correct approach should be to consider whether in the context of the particular case, the relevant domestic law is unnecessarily restrictive: see Castells v Spain (1992) 14 E. A local authority has no feelings to be hurt by a libel: see Fielding v Variety Incorporated  2 QB 841. The Convention, though not part of domestic law, enshrines the common law. The limits of permissible criticism are wider with regard to the government. 1549; Sixteen Austrian Communes v Austria (1974) 46 Eur. That of the plaintiff asserts in paragraph 6 that there were written and published "of and concerning the council and of and concerning the council in the way of its discharge of its responsibility for the investment and control of the superannuation fund" the words contained in the article of 17 September, and paragraph 8 makes a similar assertion in relation to the article of 24 September.Thus, the English law of defamation imposes no unnecessary or illegitimate restriction on freedom of expression within article 10. The mere existence of a legal rule can violate a Convention right or freedom if it has a chilling effect upon the practical enjoyment of that right or freedom: Dudgeon v United Kingdom (1981) 4 E. A critic of government conduct ought not to have to guarantee the truth of all his factual assertions endangering the esteem in which government is held on pain of a successful suit for libel. v Commission of the European Communities (Case 46/87R)  E. Paragraph 9 states:"By reason of the words published on 17 September 1989 and the words and graph published on 24 September 1989 the plaintiff council has been injured in its credit and reputation and has been brought into public scandal, odium and contempt, and has suffered loss and damage."No special damage is pleaded.
Further, a partnership (which does not have a separate legal personality) is entitled to sue in its own name for damage done to its reputation: Le Fanu v Malcolmson (1848) 1 H. [Reference was also made to City of Prince George v British Columbia Television System Ltd (1978) 85 D. 8969) should not be used to determine what the common law is, or to resolve any uncertainty in the common law; in fact, however, English domestic law is consistent with article 10. Thus, a local authority has to show that a defamatory article in a newspaper refers to it as such, not just to individuals associated with it. The articles in the issue of 17 September were headed 'Revealed: Socialist tycoon's deals with a Labour chief' and 'Bizarre deals of a council leader and the media tycoon:' that in the issue of 24 September was headed 'Council share deals under scrutiny.' The council leader was Mr David Melvyn Bookbinder; the 'media tycoon' was Mr Owen Oyston.
Now it is for us to determine whether a corporation can bring such an action, and I must say that, to my mind, to allow such a thing would be wholly unprecedented and contrary to principle.
A corporation may sue for a libel affecting property, not for one merely affecting personal reputation.
We do everything we can to support you in doing the things you enjoy.
“Goto80 aka Anders Carlsson is a lo-fi artist and researcher who has been called “the most prolific chiptune artist in the world”.
In the Bognor Regis case  2 QB 169 no attempt was made to weigh the public interest in freedom of expression against the public interest in the protection of reputation. (3d) 755 it is uncertain whether that case remains good law in Canada in the light of the constitutional guarantee of free speech in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms: see Edmonton Journal v Attorney-General for Alberta (1989) 64 D. The Law Times report contains a somewhat longer judgement of Day J in these terms, 63 LT 805, 806-807:"This action is brought by the mayor, aldermen, and citizens of the city of Manchester to recover damages from the defendant in respect of that which is alleged by them to be a libel on the corporation.