由此 - 40 - A B 156. A In all those circumstances, I think that Mr. Carolan’s suggestion of $1 million in general damages in respect of ARY is fully C B C justified. D D E 157. In Jameel (Mohammed) v. Wall Street Journal Europe Sprl E [2007] 1 AC 359 (HL), Mr. Jameel received an award of £30,000 in respect F G of a wrongful allegation of terrorist financing. The award which I make here is greater because the allegations made against ARY do not stop at F G terrorist financing. ARY also stands wrongfully accused in the Article of H H money laundering and drug trafficking. I I 158. J By contrast, I differ with Mr. Carolan in relation to $1 million J in general damages for Digital UK. K K 159. L A corporation is different from a human being. In Lord Hoffmann’s words (see Jameel at §91):“In the case of an individual, his reputation is a part of his personality, the ‘immortal part’ of himself and it is right that he should be entitled to vindicate his reputation and receive compensation for a slur upon it without proof of financial loss. But a commercial company has no soul and its reputation is no more than a commercial asset, something attached to its trading name which brings in customers. I see no reason why the rule which requires proof of damage to commercial assets in other torts, such as malicious falsehood, should not also apply to defamation.” M N O P M N O P Q Q R L 160. Lord Hoffman’s was a dissenting judgment in Jameel. R Nonetheless, even according to the majority in the latter case, for reasons S T similar to those summarised by Lord Hoffmann, the principle is (see Jameel at §13 (Lord Bingham citing Kay LJ in South Hetton Coal Co. S T Ld. v. North-Eastern News Association Ltd. [1894] 1 QB 133 (at 148)):U U V V