Day 177 - 26 Oct 95 - Page 49


     
     1        evidence that has already been given can be ignored.
     2        Because what Prager says is that evidence directed to a
     3        meaning which is not the sting of the libel is
     4        inadmissible, because it can only then be directed to
     5        reduction of damages; whereas Broadcasting Corporation of
     6        New Zealand says evidence which is directed to proof of the
     7        truth of a non-defamatory meaning is irrelevant and
     8        inadmissible.
     9
    10   MR. MORRIS:  Sorry, this is not the Prager v. Times one?
    11
    12   MR. RAMPTON:  No.  Prager says you cannot lead evidence to
    13        simply to reduce the damages.  The advantage or
    14        disadvantage -- I do not know which it is -- but the
    15        difference between this case and Prager is that when
    16        your Lordship has ruled on the question now before
    17        your Lordship, everybody will know what the meaning is.
    18        That means that all evidence directed at some lesser
    19        meaning becomes irrelevant and can be discarded, whether it
    20        has already been given or not.
    21
    22   MR. JUSTICE BELL: That is helpful.  But all you are doing there
    23        is explaining why Prager is in there.  In fact, I made the
    24        conscious decision not to remind myself of what the
    25        evidence was on this topic, because it is irrelevant to
    26        making -- I have to say that it is now so long ago, that
    27        has not been terribly difficult exercise to go through, not
    28        remembering the ebb and flow of the evidence on it.
    29
    30   MR. RAMPTON:  Can I ask your Lordship, first of all -- I am sure
    31        you have done it already, but just in case, and I am sure
    32        the Defendants may have done it, perhaps not all that
    33        enthusiastically -- to remind yourself of the meaning which
    34        we were given leave by your Lordship to plead in relation
    35        to this question.  It is F on page 13 of the Amended
    36        Statement of Claim.
    37
    38   MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes.
    39
    40   MR. RAMPTON:  I am very familiar with it.  I think everybody
    41        is.
    42
    43   MR. JUSTICE BELL: I have got to deal with G and H as well, have
    44        I not, because they are part of the meaning with regard to
    45        nutrition; and, for instance, a question might arise,
    46        whatever you say about F1 being defamatory, whether G is
    47        defamatory, and then whether -----
    48
    49   MR. RAMPTON:  I desire to say nothing about G.
    50 
    51   MR. JUSTICE BELL: I mean, quite frankly ----- 
    52 
    53   MR. RAMPTON:  If it meant -----
    54
    55   MR. JUSTICE BELL: Perhaps I can just say that, although the
    56        leaflet may say G in terms, I had not thought that G on its
    57        own was defamatory.  It may not be particularly
    58        complimentary of your clients' food, but that is another
    59        matter.
    60

Prev Next Index