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
