Day 052 - 21 Nov 94 - Page 52
1 unequivocal. Apart, therefore, from the surgery which we
2 have administered to these particulars, we have ordered
3 that as a term of the grant of leave to amend, the
4 following additional paragraphs, as drafted by the
5 defendants, be inserted respectively in the defences."
6
7
8 My Lord, then there follow, in fact in the wrong order, the
9 paragraphs which we were held to write setting out the
10 nature of the case which we were seeking to justify.
11
12 My Lord, that was followed (and this too I hope is in the
13 little bundle of authorities) two years later by a cause
14 called Prager and the Times Newspapers. My Lord, that is
15 1988 1 WLR starting at page 77. It is probably only page
16 86 that I need at letter F. Again this is the judgment of
17 the Court of Appeal through Purchas L.J.
18
19 The Lord Justice has already cited from another case --
20 this is the judgment of Lord Justice Mustill to which
21 I referred earlier -- sought to explain the meaning of
22 Lucas Box's case, but I will start at letter F. This is
23 the judgment of Purchas L.J.
24
25 "At the risk of adding confusion to clarity, in my
26 judgment, it is still open to a defendant to plead so as to
27 justify any reasonable meaning of the words published
28 which a jury, properly directed, might find to be the real
29 meaning. In doing this he does not have to identify the
30 precise meaning for which he contends, but he must make
31 clear to the plaintiff what case he proposes to make in
32 precise detail. This may well, and in most cases probably
33 will, disclose one or more meanings of the words which he
34 is prepared to justify; but he is not obliged to plead
35 specifically any meaning for which he contends.
36
37 "At the heart of this case, of course, is the proposition
38 which asserts that the scope of the defence of
39 justification should not depend upon the way in which the
40 plaintiff pleads his case, but on the meanings which the
41 words published are capable of bearing. Mr. Bateson [who I
42 think was for the defendants] did not seek to challenge
43 this proposition but submitted that it does not apply to
44 the facts of this case."
45
46 My Lord, I do not need to go further than that.
47
48 MR. JUSTICE BELL: What you are saying, if one looks at tab 3 as
49 an example at least, whether or not it amounts to the
50 meaning which the Defendants bat for, it should, looking at
51 the first paragraph in tab 3, particularise what is meant
52 by the words "the links between".
53
54 MR. RAMPTON: Yes, and in the third paragraph the words "a
55 relationship between". You will see, my Lord, where the
56 form of our admission came from if one looks at the first
57 part of the third paragraph on the page. My Lord, I would
58 submit that it is clear from these authorities that in any
59 normal case a defendant is compelled at the time when he
60 pleads his defence to state what it is that he says is true
