Day 307 - 27 Nov 96 - Page 60


     
     1        have put themselves in the public eye and have immense
     2        power; and it is in the public interest that they be
     3        subject to unfettered scrutiny -- which is what the House
     4        of Lords decided in Derbyshire County Council v. The Times
     5        and was extended in the National Union of Mineworkers case.
     6
     7   MR JUSTICE BELL:  Have you actually got the title to the NUM
     8        case now?
     9
    10   MR. MORRIS:   Yes.  We actually have the final judgment on it,
    11        where they say they are extending the House of Lords ----
    12
    13   MS. STEEL:   The judgment was on -- it is British Coal
    14        Corporation -----
    15
    16   MR. JUSTICE BELL:   Speak up.
    17
    18   MS. STEEL:   British Coal Corporation v. The National Union of
    19        Mineworkers Yorkshire Area and Kenneth Capstick.
    20
    21   MR. JUSTICE BELL:   Take it slowly NUM, Yorkshire Area?
    22
    23   MS. STEEL:   And Kenneth Capstick.  We have actually got a copy
    24        of the transcript of the judgment, and it is case number
    25        1992/B/2573, and the judgment was given on
    26        Friday, 28th June 1996.
    27
    28   MR. JUSTICE BELL:   Where was that?
    29
    30   MS. STEEL:   French L.J. in the Queens Bench Division.
    31        Actually, it looks like it has been typed up by
    32        Barnett Lenton.
    33
    34   MR. JUSTICE BELL:   You know, the sooner you give me a copy of
    35        that, the better, rather than storing it up to the last
    36        minute.  I am not suggesting you are storing it up on
    37        purpose.
    38
    39   MR. MORRIS:   We are not doing it deliberately.  I have not got
    40        a copy myself.  The point -----
    41
    42   MR. JUSTICE BELL:   The point is this -- I will tell you why I
    43        am concerned about it, because I am not going to prejudge
    44        the matter when I have not even read it.  I know what the
    45        Derbyshire case says.  At the moment, that seems to me to
    46        be a very different case to this; it was an elected
    47        political body, or an elected body; it was not a company
    48        like this in which ordinary people -- or anyone else, for
    49        that matter -- had shareholdings, stockholdings.  But if
    50        you are saying that an action should be dismissed because 
    51        there is no right to bring a libel action, or if you are 
    52        saying that it should be stayed because there is not a 
    53        cause of action, you normally should do that by making a
    54        specific application before one embarks on the litigation
    55        at all.  Now, I appreciate you say: "Oh, well, there is
    56        only this case on 28th June."  But, whenever you heard of
    57        it, you should have said: "May we make the application now,
    58        please?"
    59
    60   MR. MORRIS:   Well, I think we stated in our opening speeches

Prev Next Index