Aerial Ropeways - Environmental Clearance

damages. It is, I think, completely uncontroversial to suggest that "...a judgment must beread in the light of the facts of the case in which it was given" (Smith and Bailey, The ModernEnglish Legal System, 2 nd edn, page 374). This is, of course, no more than a modern echoof an old principle, well expressed by Lord Halsbury LC in the well-known older case of Quinnv Leathem [1901] AC 495, 506, when he stated (in an observation of "a general character")that "every judgment must be read as applicable to the particular facts proved, or assumed tobe proved, since the generality of the expressions which may be found there are not intendedto be expositions of the whole law, but governed and qualified by the particular facts of thecase in which such expressions are to be found". I would regard it as equally uncontroversial tosuggest that, in the quest to discover the meaning of a judgment, as in the case of any otherdocument or written instrument, particular passages should be taken in their context, both withregard to the "factual matrix" (to borrow Lord Wilberforce's famous formulation in a notentirely dissimilar context in Reardon Smith Line Ltd v Hansen-Tangen [1976] 3 All ER570, 573), as well as the known legal framework within which the particular issue has arisen.[44] Taking the factual context first, it is clear that, as regards the question of damages,the three issues which gave rise to GOJ's dissatisfaction with and subsequent challenge tothe arbitrators' award were those identified (in para. [14] above) as grounds (d), (f) and (h). As Ihave already recounted (at paras, [16] and [17] above), grounds (d) and (f) were conceded byNTCS and the impact of these concessions on the quantum of damages awarded by thearbitrators was reflected in GOJ's attorneys' open letter to NTCS’ attorneys dated 16 June 2004and in the 17 June 2004 joint letter to the Registrar. Thereafter, save with regard to ground(h) (the mitigation point), which remains to be determined, the quantum of damages have