Day 158 - 19 Jul 95 - Page 46


     
     1        words complained of", then your Lordship is probably
     2        right.  It does not, in logic, in my submission, mean that
     3        I cannot now take the same point in relation to the
     4        pleading which is put forward for the first time.
     5
     6        A submission which is often made by people who oppose leave
     7        to amend is, I think, this, that if this had been on the
     8        record at the beginning, could it have been struck out?  If
     9        it could have been, then it ought not to be allowed by way
    10        of amendment.
    11
    12   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Can you help me on that, because my
    13        recollection may be sadly misleading me.  But did I not
    14        strike out part of this -- although this might have not
    15        come back in, because Neill L.J. said that his ruling did
    16        not relate to matters which did not fall foul of the good
    17        and sufficient evidence point -- and then you took the view
    18        (which may well have been sensible) that you did not want
    19        to argue all that again and have the possible delay of
    20        going back to the Court of Appeal on that, so it went back
    21        in.
    22
    23   MR. RAMPTON:  It has never been in, as far as I know.
    24
    25   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  No, no.  Sorry, the Costa Rica and
    26        Guatemala?
    27
    28   MR. RAMPTON:  No.  Your Lordship did not strike out Costa Rica.
    29
    30   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I did not?
    31
    32   MR. MORRIS:  You did.  You struck out the whole environment
    33        section, I seem to remember.
    34
    35   MR. RAMPTON:  On what basis was it, can you remember?
    36
    37   MR. MORRIS:   I cannot remember.  That is my memory of it.
    38
    39   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I thought the whole of destruction of
    40        environment went ---
    41
    42   MR. RAMPTON:  Yes, it was.
    43
    44   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  -- and quite a lot of employment went.  Most
    45        of employment went, for the lack of good and sufficient
    46        evidence reason.
    47
    48   MR. RAMPTON:  What I cannot remember is the reason why
    49        Costa Rica and Guatemala went.  Whether it was because, as
    50        a matter of principle, no reasonable jury could have found 
    51        that it provided a defence to the words complained of, or 
    52        whether it was on the basis that there was no clear and 
    53        sufficient evidence to support it, I cannot remember.  If
    54        it was the latter, then it is natural, according to the
    55        Court of Appeal's judgment, it should come back in.  If it
    56        was the former, then, plainly, I lost an opportunity to
    57        have it kept out.
    58
    59   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Let us just look.  It was my ruling of
    60        15th November 1993, and it is about pages 3 and 4.  If we

Prev Next Index