GROOM v. CROCKER.

(1938) 60 Ll.L.Rep. 393

COURT OF APPEAL.

Before Sir Wilfrid Greene (Master of the Rolls), Lord Justice Scott and Lord Justice MacKinnon.

Solicitor and client-Motor insurance- Running-down action-Duty of solicitors and insurance company-Breach of duty-Libel-Plaintiff insured with defendant insurance company-"The [insurance company] shall if and so long as it so desires have absolute conduct and control of all or any proceedings against the insured . . ." Collision between plaintiff's car and lorry belonging to T-Plaintiff and passenger (plaintiff's brother) injured-Lorry driver convicted of dangerous driving- Claim by plaintiff against T settled- Writ issued by passenger against plaintiff and T as joint defendants- Writ handed to defendant company -Papers passed on by company to defendant solicitors-Arrangement between defendant insurance company and T's insurers that each should pay half damages awarded- Delivery of defence by defendant solicitors, acting on plaintiff's behalf, wherein plaintiff was made to admit that the collision occurred solely by reason of his negligence, with a covering letter saying that their client (the plaintiff) "admits that he was negligent on the occasion referred to in the statement of claim" - Defence put in by T denying negligence-Protest by plaintiff to defendant company upon learning of admission of negligence in defence-Letter written by defendant company to sub-agent: "You state that [the plaintiff] is very cross that, without his consent, negligence should be admitted when, in fact, no one seriously suggests that he was negligent. That may be the view of our insured, but nevertheless if we had repudiated liability we ran a very serious risk of the Court holding a different view and giving a decision against us" - Trial of action-Damages and costs awarded against plaintiff (in fact paid by defendant company)-Claim brought by plaintiff against defendant solicitors and defendant company for breach of contract, negligence and libel-Duty of solicitors and insurance company in such circumstances - Whether letters were defamatory - Plea by solicitors that letter was written on privileged occasion-Proof of malice-Measure of damages - Questions to jury, with answers: (1) Were the defendants, Messrs. Crocker, guilty of negligence or breach of duty?-Yes. (2) If yes, what damages?-£1000. (3) Libel as to Messrs. Crocker; Are the words defamatory in their ordinary meaning?-Yes. (4) Do they bear the meaning alleged in the innuendo, and if so are they defamatory in that sense?-Yes. (5) Were the defendants guilty of malice in sending the said letter?- Yes, indirect motive. (6) Was the letter of Mar. 26 written with the leave and licence of the plaintiff?-No. (7) Damages for libel against Messrs. Crocker?-£1000. (8) As to the National Farmers Union Mutual Insurance Society, Ltd.: Were these defendants guilty of negligence or breach of duty?- Yes. (9) If yes, what damages?-£1000. (10) As to the libel: Are the words defamatory in their ordinary meaning? -Yes. (11) Do they bear the meaning alleged in the innuendo, and if so are they defamatory in that sense?- Yes. (12) Damages for libel against the National Farmers Union Mutual Insurance Society, Ltd.?-£1000.