Day 158 - 19 Jul 95 - Page 47


     
     1        look at 4(e), which was the meanings -----
     2
     3   MS. STEEL:  I do not think we have them.  I do not know whether
     4        anybody has a spare copy?
     5
     6   MR. RAMPTON:  Passage (b), I think that is to do with using land
     7        for crops such as soya.  In fact, your Lordship did decide
     8        the thing on the basis that no reasonable jury could think
     9        that what was pleaded supported what was alleged in the
    10        leaflet.  So that is absolutely right.  That is at (d) on
    11        page 5.  Your Lordship stated that what, in your view, any
    12        reasonable jury would have to find the meaning was of (e)
    13        and (f), which is the meaning I think I have just proposed.
    14
    15   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I said at 6C that you were correct, in my
    16        view, in so as far as the first part of passage 12 -- which
    17        I do not have highlighted any longer -- "seems to put
    18        forward a justifiable meaning for parts (a), (c) and (d) of
    19        the leaflet, since, in my view, the only meaning which
    20        those parts could possibly bear is an allegation of direct
    21        destruction of the rain forest and direct eviction of
    22        indigenous farmers by the Plaintiffs, among others, as I
    23        have already said" -- which is really the argument you have
    24        just put to me.
    25
    26   MR. RAMPTON:  It is, yes.  In the light of that, clearly, we
    27        must accept blame for not having thought about it more
    28        carefully when the case came back from the Court of Appeal,
    29        because that part of your Lordship's judgment is quite
    30        untouched by what the Court of Appeal said, so we missed an
    31        opportunity.
    32
    33        My Lord, I still say -- and I will only say it once more --
    34        that I do not believe that, in logic, that prevents me from
    35        taking the point now in relation to this proposed new
    36        pleading.
    37
    38   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  No.  I do not think it does in logic, because
    39        you can say at any stage: "Well, whether it would have been
    40        all right in November 1993, now we are two-thirds way
    41        through the trial."  I appreciate that.  But what troubles
    42        me is whether, late though it may be -- let us say it was
    43        two or three months ago, because notice was given then;
    44        I know it has taken Mr. Morris till now to feel he is ready
    45        to argue it, so you could say that that is his
    46        responsibility, not yours.
    47
    48   MR. RAMPTON:  I cannot make the applications.
    49
    50   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  But is there -- well I have already put it to 
    51        you. 
    52 
    53   MR. RAMPTON:  There is this inconsistency in our conduct of the
    54        case, that we are making an application in relation to a
    55        new pleading -- well, it is not even a new pleading -- a
    56        proposed pleading which we could have made in relation to
    57        one of the existing -----
    58
    59   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Which already exists, yes.
    60

Prev Next Index