由此 - 41 - A “[A] trading corporation may sue for a libel calculated to injure them in respect of their business, and may do so without any proof of damages general or special, although, where there is no such evidence, the damages given will probably be small”. B C B C D D 161. Mr. Carolan accepted the correctness of the latter principle. E E F A 162. Digital UK is accused in the Article of money laundering and F running an illegal “hawala” service. That is similar to the libel in Jameel G H I J K L where Mr. Jameel’s company was said to be engaged in terrorist financing. The company was awarded general damages of £10,000 (about $150,000). 163. In my view, a similar level of general damages is called for here. I would therefore award $150,000 in general damages to Digital UK. 164. I would award a similar amount ($150,000) as general damages to ARY Traders. As Mr. Carolan recognised, any damage to G H I J K L ARY Trader’s reputation would be reflective of and derivative from its M N association with ARY. To avoid double counting, ARY Traders’ award M must thus be significantly smaller than that of ARY. Given further the N principle identified by the majority in Jameel, I think that $150,000 would O be the proper amount. P P Q B.2 165. R Special damages Q Digital UK claimed special damages in relation to the loss of R business said to have been caused by the libel in the Article. S S 166. T O In support of Digital UK’s claim, Mr. Salman Iqbal stated that in his view a decline in the company’s turnover and revenue in 2006 and T U U V V