Day 312 - 11 Dec 96 - Page 42


     
     1        proof of loss, it was about the fact that the words,
     2        allegedly defamatory words, are incapable of attribution to
     3        a multi-national corporation, i.e. that you cannot say a
     4        multi-national corporation is a murderer or a forger.
     5
     6   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes.  Very well.
     7
     8   MS. STEEL:   It is on a different point.
     9
    10   MR. JUSTICE BELL: Well, as you know, when I gave the ruling on
    11        meaning I had something to say about the circumstances in
    12        which a company could sue.  I have to say that if I had
    13        what Lord Reed said in the Derbyshire case in mind I might
    14        have said it much more shortly just by referring to parts
    15        of his judgment I referred to the other day.  The last
    16        thing I want to do at the moment is just to argue back
    17        about the matter.
    18
    19   MR. MORRIS:  No, I understand.
    20
    21   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  What I would like you to do, you have this,
    22        you have put the cases in front of me to consider, you have
    23        made general points about the way you say I should go if
    24        I think I do have any constitutional power to move the law
    25        on in the particular circumstances of this case.  What I am
    26        encouraging you to do is not dwell on the matter but just
    27        make sure you have your main points over.
    28
    29   MR. MORRIS:  Yes.
    30
    31   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Repetition when you prove it, I have taken
    32        them on board.
    33
    34   MR. MORRIS:  Yes.  I understand that, I am trying to skate
    35        through it.  Obviously, formally I will adopt the document
    36        I have served.
    37
    38   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes.
    39
    40   MR. MORRIS:  If I can just mention the other point I would like
    41        to make, a couple of points, which is the NUM case, by
    42        dealing with the British Coal Corporation and removing its
    43        right to sue for libel that the difference between the
    44        British Coal Corporation, or that kind of organisation and
    45        a multi-national corporation, so-called difficulty between
    46        a so-called public body and a so-called private body are
    47        increasingly blurred, and we would say that the effect of
    48        the NUM judgment is to ask the question: is it in the
    49        public interest that multi-national corporations have the
    50        right to sue their critics?
    51
    52        So, and a point I think to make is that, for example, the
    53        British Coal Corporation, which the NUM was given
    54        unfettered right to criticise, has now been replaced
    55        I think by, is it, RJB Mining, or something.  It has been
    56        privatised, the mines have been privatised.  And surely the
    57        same should still apply?
    58
    59        So, that is what we are saying.
    60

Prev Next Index