Corporate defamation and mitigation evidence: business-related slander is actionable without special damage, but specific misconduct is inadmissible.

A corporation may sue for defamation where spoken words impute dishonest or improper conduct in the course of its business, and proof of special damage is not required when the slander attacks the company in its trade or trading reputation. In a defamation action, a plaintiff may be cross-examined as a witness on credit, but specific convictions or isolated acts of misconduct cannot be used to prove bad character or to support mitigation of damages. Only general reputation is admissible for that purpose, so the proposed evidence of particular misconduct was properly excluded.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether defamatory spoken words imputing dishonest or improper conduct in the conduct of a business are actionable at the suit of a limited company without proof of special damage. (ii) Whether specific convictions and similar past misconduct could be elicited in cross-examination or proved in mitigation of damages in a defamation action.

Issue (i): Whether defamatory spoken words imputing dishonest or improper conduct in the conduct of a business are actionable at the suit of a limited company without proof of special damage.

Analysis: The spoken words were held to bear a plainly defamatory meaning, carrying the imputation that the company was carrying on its restaurant business in a questionable manner and that statutory food and rationing requirements were being breached. The governing principle applied was that a corporation may sue for defamation where the words relate to its business. The absence of special damage did not defeat such a claim when the slander attacked the company in the course of its trade or business.

Conclusion: The claim by the limited company was maintainable and the point was decided against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether specific convictions and similar past misconduct could be elicited in cross-examination or proved in mitigation of damages in a defamation action.

Analysis: The rules applied were that a plaintiff may be cross-examined to credit like any other witness, but specific instances of misconduct or conviction cannot be used to prove bad character or to contradict answers under the guise of mitigation. Only general bad reputation may be shown, not isolated specific acts. On that footing, the attempted cross-examination and proof of the particular convictions were inadmissible for mitigation of damages.

Conclusion: The exclusion of the proposed evidence was upheld and this issue was decided against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed in substance, with the underlying defamation findings and the evidentiary ruling maintained, while only the ancillary monetary correction was adjusted.

Ratio Decidendi: A company may maintain an action for defamation where the imputation is directed to its business, and specific instances of misconduct cannot be introduced as evidence of bad character in mitigation of damages in a defamation action.

---