Day 312 - 11 Dec 96 - Page 21
1 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes, five minutes.
2
3 (Short adjournment)
4
5 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes.
6
7 MS. STEEL: Hopefully, you have a copy of the document I will
8 be going through.
9
10 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes.
11
12 MS. STEEL: There are a few corrections that need to be made to
13 it, and I deal with them as I go through it. This is what
14 we say the legal framework should be for deciding on the
15 matters in issue in this case: the first point is that it
16 is our view that multi-nationals should not have a right to
17 sue their critics for libel, and specifically we firstly
18 submit that the Plaintiffs should not be accorded a cause
19 of action in libel. It is of the highest public importance
20 that Corporations such as the first and second Plaintiffs
21 should be open to uninhibited public criticism. The threat
22 of civil actions for defamation places an undesirable
23 fetter on the freedom to express such criticism, and it is
24 contrary to the public interest for multi-nationals to have
25 any right at common law to maintain an action for damages
26 for defamation.
27
28 In other words, the principles extracted from Derbyshire
29 County Council v Times Newspapers 1993 Appeal Cases 534 in
30 relation to local authorities apply equally and should be
31 applied to multi-national corporations, particularly those
32 of the nature and scope of the Plaintiffs.
33
34 It says here 'see appendix 1'. That is actually what
35 Mr. Morris is going to go on to with the NUM case, so we
36 will leave that until he comes on to that.
37
38 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes.
39
40 MS. STEEL: No. 2: effectively, the Defendants submit that this
41 case should be struck out even at this late stage because
42 neither of the Plaintiffs have put in either evidence that
43 they have suffered any financial loss whatever. The basis
44 for this submission is that the Plaintiffs should not be
45 allowed to take advantage of a rule that was introduced and
46 has been applied to safeguard the reputation of
47 individuals, namely the rule that in actions for libel the
48 Plaintiffs need not prove actual loss and that loss is
49 presumed, because the rationale for this rule is that a
50 living person's reputation is incapable of quantification
51 and that a defamatory allegation against such an individual
52 is presumed to affect his or her whole being. Damage has
53 to be presumed because no evidence could realistically be
54 called to prove the nature and extent of the damage to his
55 or her character.
56
57 Moving on to No 3. Multi-nationals and/or large
58 corporations such as the Plaintiffs are in an entirely
59 different position. They do not have a general reputation
60 which is protected by the court; a trading corporation only
