Day 312 - 11 Dec 96 - Page 40


     
     1        clearly that the courts should decide to remove the right
     2        of multi-national corporations to sue for libel.
     3
     4        And can I make the point, in the NUM case, first of all,
     5        that the decision to abandon the case effectively -- if you
     6        look on page 1 of the NUM judgment.
     7
     8   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes.
     9
    10   MR. MORRIS:  It was taken after it had started, and when it says
    11        at line F 'that people proper and reasonable application to
    12        make', even though the case had started, rather than at the
    13        start of the hearing, and, secondly, it did not...  So,
    14        that is the first point I would like to make on this.  I am
    15        trying to cross reference.
    16
    17   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  The timescale was somewhat different was it
    18        not?
    19
    20   MR. MORRIS:  Yes.  But, I mean, the point is that the principle
    21        is still holds good even though the timescale is
    22        different.  Obviously we would say that, and in order not
    23        to read it all out I am trying to save time by picking out
    24        bits.  That means it is a little bit chaotic,
    25
    26        The one implication of the Derbyshire case is that the
    27        Plaintiff being a non-public corporation, we would say,
    28        should have to show damage in the way of its business.  The
    29        examples mentioned about impeding the recruitment of the
    30        best qualified workers clearly do not apply to Marks
    31        because they do not recruit qualified workers, they only
    32        recruit unqualified workers, so that does not help us take
    33        the point, the Plaintiffs' point, forward or the status quo
    34        forward.
    35
    36        We would say they would have to show, and that backs up
    37        what we were saying earlier about the Plaintiff should have
    38        an obligation to show actual damage, certainly for their
    39        quest for damages to succeed but also for the basis of the
    40        action to go forward.  It is not right to invite the court
    41        to speculate on the effect of a published leaflet, that is
    42        not the correct course.  Especially in the light of the
    43        drastic curtailment of rights to freedom of speech.
    44
    45        Now, obviously, the general point out of the Derbyshire
    46        case, before we go on to the NUM one a bit further, is that
    47        it is contrary to the public interest for organs of
    48        government to be able to sue for libel, and that NUM case
    49        extends that not just to elective governmental bodies but
    50        to, effectively, any organs of government, certainly moving
    51        strongly in that direction where we have what is deemed to
    52        be in the British Coal Corporation case a kind of quango
    53        without any elective criteria whatsoever.  So, we would
    54        argue that multi-national corporations do not even have the
    55        pseudo accountability, or the accountability that elective
    56        bodies have, and therefore it is even more compelling, we
    57        would say, that they be subject to unfettered scrutiny, and
    58        therefore have their right to sue for libel removed in the
    59        spirit of the Derbyshire and NUM cases.
    60

Prev Next Index