Day 158 - 19 Jul 95 - Page 46
1 words complained of", then your Lordship is probably
2 right. It does not, in logic, in my submission, mean that
3 I cannot now take the same point in relation to the
4 pleading which is put forward for the first time.
5
6 A submission which is often made by people who oppose leave
7 to amend is, I think, this, that if this had been on the
8 record at the beginning, could it have been struck out? If
9 it could have been, then it ought not to be allowed by way
10 of amendment.
11
12 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Can you help me on that, because my
13 recollection may be sadly misleading me. But did I not
14 strike out part of this -- although this might have not
15 come back in, because Neill L.J. said that his ruling did
16 not relate to matters which did not fall foul of the good
17 and sufficient evidence point -- and then you took the view
18 (which may well have been sensible) that you did not want
19 to argue all that again and have the possible delay of
20 going back to the Court of Appeal on that, so it went back
21 in.
22
23 MR. RAMPTON: It has never been in, as far as I know.
24
25 MR. JUSTICE BELL: No, no. Sorry, the Costa Rica and
26 Guatemala?
27
28 MR. RAMPTON: No. Your Lordship did not strike out Costa Rica.
29
30 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I did not?
31
32 MR. MORRIS: You did. You struck out the whole environment
33 section, I seem to remember.
34
35 MR. RAMPTON: On what basis was it, can you remember?
36
37 MR. MORRIS: I cannot remember. That is my memory of it.
38
39 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I thought the whole of destruction of
40 environment went ---
41
42 MR. RAMPTON: Yes, it was.
43
44 MR. JUSTICE BELL: -- and quite a lot of employment went. Most
45 of employment went, for the lack of good and sufficient
46 evidence reason.
47
48 MR. RAMPTON: What I cannot remember is the reason why
49 Costa Rica and Guatemala went. Whether it was because, as
50 a matter of principle, no reasonable jury could have found
51 that it provided a defence to the words complained of, or
52 whether it was on the basis that there was no clear and
53 sufficient evidence to support it, I cannot remember. If
54 it was the latter, then it is natural, according to the
55 Court of Appeal's judgment, it should come back in. If it
56 was the former, then, plainly, I lost an opportunity to
57 have it kept out.
58
59 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Let us just look. It was my ruling of
60 15th November 1993, and it is about pages 3 and 4. If we
