由此 - 44 - A B 176. In the premises, I do not accept that Digital UK has established that it is entitled to special damages as a result of the publication of the C A B C Article. D D E F B.3 177. Exemplary damages Mr. Carolan did not press this. He submitted that, where an E F editor negligently fails to check up a story, the Court may infer G H I J recklessness. If so, there was a basis (Mr. Carolan suggested) for awarding punitive damages. 178. I think that ATOL was grossly negligent and irresponsible in allowing the Article to be published in the form that it was. But I do not G H I J think that I am able on the available evidence to infer that ATOL was K reckless in permitting the Article to appear on its website. L L 179. M N K I come to this conclusion, despite the absence of oral evidence from ATOL. I accept that, had ATOL called witnesses, Mr. Carolan may have put a case of recklessness to them. By failing to call witnesses, ATOL M N deprived Mr. Carolan of such a chance. Nonetheless, I do not think that it O P follows from this that I am bound to find recklessness. I must also evaluate such evidence as there is and form some view on whether there is a basis O P for finding recklessness. Q Q R 180. It seems to me that a careless and slipshod reading of the R available source documents upon which Mr. Lintner may have relied upon, S T S could conceivably have led an editor negligently to authorise publication of Article. There has consequently been irresponsibility and gross negligence. T U U V V