Day 313 - 13 Dec 96 - Page 57
1 maintain actions for defamation.
2
3 That being so, article 10 has no place in your Lordship's
4 consideration. English law is clear, and your Lordship, as
5 a judge at first instance, is bound by the Court of
6 Appeal's decisions and by what Lord Keith said, of course,
7 in the House of Lords. These Plaintiffs have a right to
8 sue in defamation for material published by these
9 Defendants in this country within the limitation period, so
10 long as that material affects their trading reputation, the
11 words of Lord Keith being, if I can find it, which I do not
12 think I can at the moment -- I had them a moment ago -- I
13 am just trying to find it -----
14
15 MR. JUSTICE BELL: It was the part which Mr. Justice French
16 quoted ---
17
18 MR. RAMPTON: That is right.
19
20 MR. JUSTICE BELL: -- in his judgment, was it not?
21
22 MR. RAMPTON: I knew I had seen it somewhere.
23
24 MR. JUSTICE BELL: "The authorities cited clearly establish that
25 a trading corporation is entitled to sue in respect of
26 defamatory matters which can be seen as having a tendency
27 to damage it in the way of its business". Is that the part
28 you had in mind?
29
30 MR. RAMPTON: Yes, that is right. It goes on somewhat, "... and
31 might damage his prospects of recruiting people ... might
32 deter others from doing business with him".
33
34 MR. JUSTICE BELL: What Lord Justice Gibson said is that if that
35 is so that is the end of it, so far as English law is
36 concerned.
37
38 MR. RAMPTON: Yes.
39
40 MR. JUSTICE BELL: The same would apply, presumably you would
41 say, to matters such as where the burden of proof lies, and
42 so on, in that litigation?
43
44 MR. RAMPTON: There is no question about that, whatever the
45 European court may have said in the Icelandic case, the
46 Thorgeirson case, can have no impact on English law at all.
47
48 MR. JUSTICE BELL: What Lord Justice Ralph Gibson went on to say
49 is that if the defendant should then lose the action and go
50 to the European Court and succeed there and get a judgment
51 against the government of this country, it is for this
52 country to decide whether to change the law or risk falling
53 foul of the Convention again in future.
54
55 MR. RAMPTON: That is right. The government can decide not to
56 obey the court's interpretation of their treaty obligations
57 if it wishes it to do so, but that does not the Plaintiffs'
58 right in the matter one way or the other. The Plaintiff is
59 not even a party to... Or the winning party is not a party
60 to the proceedings in Strasbourg at all.
