Day 305 - 25 Nov 96 - Page 25
1
2 As far as I can tell, the law that you are referring to,
3 Ricci v. Chow [1987] 3 All ERs, 534, this was a case about
4 the defendant who was the Secretary General of the
5 Seychelles National Movement, and, despite that being his
6 position, the claim against him had been struck out because
7 there was no evidence that he was the publisher of the
8 journal or in any way responsible for its publication. We
9 would say that that must apply to us even more so, because
10 we are not in any position of authority.
11
12 Just on the matter of being a signatory to the bank
13 account, it does not actually make you in any way have any
14 authority over anybody else, to be a signatory to the bank
15 account. It certainly did not in London Greenpeace,
16 because there not any positions of authority.
17
18 That case -- maybe I should read out the beginning part.
19
20 "Following the assassination in London of a
21 prominent member of the Seychellois National
22 Movement (the SNM), a publication which styled
23 itself as the official journal of the SNM
24 published an article which alleged that the
25 plaintiff, in collaboration with others, had
26 caused or procured the assassination. The
27 plaintiff brought an action for libel and/or
28 discovery against the defendant, who was known
29 as the secretary general of the SNM, although
30 such a position was not recognised by the
31 organisation's constitution and did not carry a
32 place on the executive committee responsible for
33 the publication of the journal. The plaintiff
34 alleged that the defendant had published the
35 article or caused it to be published and sought
36 damages or alternatively an order that the
37 defendant divulge the identity of the persons
38 responsible for printing and publishing it. The
39 plaintiff then obtained leave to administer five
40 interrogatories to the defendant. On appeal by
41 the defendant, the judge found that there was no
42 evidence that the defendant had been in any way
43 responsible for the publication of the article.
44 The judge accordingly struck out the claim for
45 damages for libel..."
46
47 Then it goes on it say that he allowed two of the
48 interrogatories, which this was a later appeal about and
49 which, in the end, were not allowed.
50
51 In the judgment of Parker LJ, he says -- this on page 536:
52
53 "The defendant, Mr. Chow, was appointed by
54 Mr. Hoarau" (who was the guy who had been
55 assassinated) "to assist in the administration
56 of SNM and was given by him the title of
57 Secretary General, but the constitution of SNM
58 provides for no such officer.
59
60 "On the strength of Mr. Chow's position as
