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

Prev Next Index