Example sentences of "[to-vb] for [noun sg] " in BNC.
Next page| No | Sentence |
|---|---|
| 1 | Shoppers will have more in their pockets and it will not cost companies vast sums to borrow for expansion . |
| 2 | All the same there is a strong argument that low investment in the British economy is not just a matter of funds being unavailable ; there is a reluctance to borrow for investment purposes on the part of many enterprises . |
| 3 | Malik , who rescued Rugby from extinction in 1986 by buying the clubhouse from the liquidators , has alleged breach of contract in commercial dealings with the club and has used his ownership of the drive and car park to sue for trespass . |
| 4 | This shift in the meaning of marriage was accompanied by changes in married women 's property rights and in the grounds women could use to sue for divorce , both of which benefited primarily middle class women . |
| 5 | Lawyer Mark Scoggins advises some of our biggest insurance companies on workplace liabilities , he believes workers could soon be able to sue for stress damage , costing British firms and their insurers , millions . |
| 6 | It was in response to what Lord Penzance called ‘ sensational cases of cruelty ’ that the first law giving working class wives an opportunity to sue for separation and maintenance was passed in 1878 . |
| 7 | Richard took hostages from them and then sent them and other members of their league to England to sue for mercy at his father 's feet . |
| 8 | Do you know , the editor of the Observer has had six married men ringing him this morning , threatening to sue for libel ? |
| 9 | Held , allowing the appeal , that , notwithstanding the general principle that a trading or non-trading corporation was entitled to sue in libel to protect so much of its corporate reputation , as distinct from that of its members , as was capable of being damaged by a defamatory statement , a local authority , as a corporate public authority , was not entitled at common law to sue for libel to protect its governing reputation ; that to allow it to do so would impose a substantial and unjustifiable restriction on freedom of expression , since an action for malicious falsehood , or a prosecution for criminal libel , provided the local authority with the sufficient and necessary protection it required in a democratic society ; and that , therefore , the local authority could not maintain its libel action for any words which reflected on it as the county council for Derbyshire in relation to its governmental and administrative functions in that county ( post , pp. 41H , 48F–G , H — 49B , 56B–C , 58A–B , 59F–G , 65B–C , F ) . |
| 10 | Ltd. v. Hawkins ( 1859 ) 4 H. & N. 87 was authority for the proposition that it was an ordinary incident of all corporations ( including municipal corporations ) that they might sue for libel ; that case was only authority for the proposition that a trading company might sue for libel by which its property was injured ; ( 3 ) in holding that the Manchester Corporation case was decided per incuriam when there was no basis for so holding and he should have followed it ; ( 4 ) in holding that in bringing an action for libel not alleged to have caused actual damage , no valid distinction could be made between trading corporations and municipal corporations , which ignored the true basis on which a trading corporation was permitted to sue for libel , namely that it had a trading character , the defamation of which might ruin it : South Hetton Coal Co . Ltd. v. North-Eastern News Association Ltd. [ 1894 ] 1 Q.B. 133 , 145 . |
| 11 | ( 1 ) The right of a non-trading corporation to sue for libel |
| 12 | The Metropolitan Saloon Omnibus case concerned the right of a trading company incorporated under the Joint Stock Companies Act 1856 ( 19 & 20 Vict. c. 47 ) to sue for libel . |
| 13 | These are only two examples of cases where it should be possible for a non-trading corporation , which asserts that its reputation is capable of being damaged by the defamatory statement , to sue for libel . |
| 14 | This judgment , which demonstrates the ‘ chilling effect ’ which the ability to sue for libel may have on the right to criticise a public authority , was cited with approval by Brennan J. delivering the opinion of the United States Supreme Court in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan ( 1964 ) 376 U.S. 254 , 277 . |
| 15 | In City of Prince George v. British Columbia Television System Ltd. , 95 D.L.R. ( 3d ) 577 the argument against allowing a municipal corporation to sue for libel , based on freedom of speech , was rejected by Aikins J.A . |
| 16 | Counsel suggests that if municipal corporations have the right to sue for libel this right would give municipalities the power to suppress legitimate and proper criticism by threats of legal proceedings . |
| 17 | If a corporate public authority is unable to sue for libel it is , however , by no means without remedy . |
| 18 | They , if defamed , will have the right to sue for libel and , in the case of a libel upon the authority 's officers acting in the course of their duties , it may be that the authority will subvent their actions . |
| 19 | If by established principles of English law it is clear that Derbyshire County Council has the right to sue for libel then this court must say so and let the action proceed . |
| 20 | ( vi ) Since the council is capable of committing the tort of libel and of being held liable to pay damages in respect of a defamatory publication the law should provide the correlative right to sue for libel . |
| 21 | ( vii ) If the court reaches the point of weighing the social needs in issue , first that of securing to the council the effective means in law of protecting its reputation and , secondly , that of protecting the right of free expression of the people of this country , the court should hold that the remaining remedies for the council , if it could not sue for libel , and in particular the action for malicious falsehood , would not be a sufficient protection for the council 's reputation , and the ability of a local authority such as the council to sue for libel would not improperly or unnecessarily restrict free expression . |
| 22 | Such a corporation , it was held , should have the same power to maintain an action for a libel by which its property is injured as the law allowed to a corporation at common law , and the power to sue for libel or slander for the protection of its reputation in the carrying on of its business . |
| 23 | The same approach was adopted by the Divisional Court in 1891 in Manchester Corporation v. Williams [ 1891 ] 1 Q.B. 94 ; 63 L.T. 805 , that is to say the court sought to determine to what extent the law , having regard to the nature of the corporation and of the libel alleged , should allow the corporation to sue for libel . |
| 24 | This court , for similar reasons , allowed a registered trade union to sue for libel : National Union of General and Municipal Workers v. Gillian [ 1946 ] K.B . |
| 25 | There is , I think , no material distinction between interpreting the law for the purposes of applying it , having due regard to article 10 , and interpreting the law for the purposes of deciding , when the point has not been finally decided by the courts , whether the law does or does not provide to a local government authority the right to sue for libel . |
| 26 | ( v ) Most libels of any gravity directed at the conduct of a local authority would sufficiently identify the councillors or officers concerned in or responsible for that conduct so as to enable individual councillors or officers to sue for libel just as , in this case , Mr. Bookbinder has brought proceedings in respect of the libels complained of by the council . |
| 27 | To allow a local government authority to sue for libel would , in my judgment , impose a substantial restriction upon freedom of expression . |
| 28 | For these reasons I have considered anxiously whether , if the law should be held not to provide to a local government authority the right to sue for libel , the need for adequate protection of the reputation of such an authority would be sufficiently met by other remedies . |
| 29 | I see the force of the point that councillors should be trusted to use the right to sue for libel only in circumstances where it is necessary in the public interest . |
| 30 | Nevertheless , my conclusion is that to allow a local government authority to sue for libel would impose an added and substantial restriction upon freedom of expression which , having regard to the ability of individuals within a local authority to sue for libel , and to the ability of a local government authority to sue for malicious falsehood , or to invoke the criminal law of libel , can not be regarded as necessary in our democratic society . |