Day 310 - 04 Dec 96 - Page 32


     
     1        Polly Peck was in.
     2
     3   MR. RAMPTON:   Mr. Atkinson is the master of these documents.
     4
     5   MR. JUSTICE BELL:   It is actually in 2, just before the
     6        beginning of 3.
     7
     8   MR. RAMPTON:   Oh.
     9
    10   MR JUSTICE BELL:    Or that is where I have it.  (Pause)
    11
    12   MR. RAMPTON:   I have found it, my Lord, yes.  Would
    13        your Lordship tell me which is the passage -----
    14
    15   MR JUSTICE BELL:  I follow what O'Connor L.J. said at page 1,033
    16        with regard to section 5, that, in applying section 5, you
    17        are looking at the words in respect of which the action is
    18        brought ---
    19
    20   MR. RAMPTON:   Yes.
    21
    22   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  -- and what you are not doing is looking at
    23        other charges in respect of which the Plaintiffs have not
    24        brought an action, which, if they were defamatory and were
    25        justified, might swamp that upon which the Plaintiff
    26        has -----
    27
    28   MR. RAMPTON:   I quite agree.  All I can say is -- I will be
    29        quite blunt about it -- he has got it the wrong way round.
    30        In fact, section 6 is a much more restrictive section than
    31        section 5.
    32
    33   MR JUSTICE BELL:  If I just go on on section 5.  So, as
    34        I understand it -- and I was prompted to get back on the
    35        right lines by what you said the other day when I make a
    36        comment -- there is a environment/index.html">litter charge in the leaflet, and I
    37        am not saying that environment/index.html">litter is not serious enough -- but
    38        suppose it was an even more serious allegation than environment/index.html">litter,
    39        but it is a separate and distinct allegation to other
    40        allegations in the leaflet, and the Plaintiff relies upon
    41        the other allegations but not the environment/index.html">litter allegation.  Then
    42        section 5 does not help if, in fact, there was an awful lot
    43        of environment/index.html">litter, even if that rather swamped the allegations
    44        which are relied on.  In this case, that may not matter,
    45        because there are a number of separate charges, as one
    46        follows through the leaflet, upon which the Plaintiffs have
    47        relied; and if I found for the Plaintiffs on one, just for
    48        the moment looking at it in its own right, but then found
    49        for the Defendants on another, just looking at that for the
    50        moment in its own right, then I would have to ask myself 
    51        the section 5 question. 
    52 
    53   MR. RAMPTON:   Exactly.  Suppose the environment/index.html">litter is in the case -- we
    54        do not believe it is, but suppose it is, because we have
    55        complained about it; that is the simplest way of looking at
    56        it.  So, you have got destruction of the rainforest,
    57        causing starvation in the Third World, environment/index.html">litter and lying
    58        about the recycled content.  Suppose that environment/index.html">litter were
    59        proved, but the other three were not.  Section 5 would not
    60        stand an earthly chance because, quite obviously, the

Prev Next Index