Arkell v. Pressdram (1971) [unreported]

When a lawyer tells you to go away, they must use professional language.  The lawyer will therefore often "refer you to the proposed reply in Arkell v. Pressdram".

In this case, a notorious libel case, Solicitors Goodman Derrick & Co. wrote to Private Eye (Ian Hislop) - and they really should have known better. They said, in the usual aggressive style:

We act for Mr Arkell who is Retail Credit Manager of Granada TV Rental Ltd.

His attention has been drawn to an article appearing in the issue of Private Eye dated 9th April 1971 on page 4. The statements made about Mr Arkell are entirely untrue and clearly highly defamatory.

We are therefore instructed to require from you immediately your proposals for dealing with the matter. Mr Arkell's first concern is that there should be a full retraction at the earliest possible date in Private Eye and he will also want his costs paid.

His attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of your reply.

Yours etc

Ian Hislop at Private Eye, known for his ability to stand up (and often ridicule) solicitors, replied as follows:

We acknowledge your letter of 29th April referring to Mr J. Arkell.

We note that Mr Arkell's attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of our reply and would therefore be grateful if you would inform us what his attitude to damages would be, were he to learn that the nature of our reply is as follows:

F**k off!

Yours etc

So when a solicitor refers to you the proposed reply in Arkkell v PressDram, you now know what he is saying.

Apparently (according to Private Eye, this was the last they heard of the matter!)