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

Prev Next Index