Day 305 - 25 Nov 96 - Page 26
1 Secretary General the plaintiff issued a writ
2 against the defendant on 11 February 1986,
3 claiming damages for libel on the basis that the
4 defendant had published or caused to be
5 published the article to which I have referred.
6 Two days later an application was issued on
7 behalf of the plaintiff seeking leave to
8 administer five interrogatories to the
9 defendant. On 7 March Master Warren gave leave
10 to administer all five interrogatories. The
11 defendant appealed, and on 16 October 1986
12 Sir Neil Lawson, sitting as a judge of the High
13 Court in chambers, allowed the appeal in part.
14
15 "He ordered that the endorsement on the
16 writ claiming damages for libel be struck out on
17 the basis that there was no evidence that the
18 defendant was the publisher of the journal or in
19 any way responsible for its publication but he
20 gave leave to substitute a claim for discovery."
21
22 So, there, the claim against this defendant is being struck
23 out on the basis that there is no evidence of him being
24 connected to publishing the article, despite the fact that
25 he has got an unofficial title of Secretary General.
26
27 So, I really do not see how the Plaintiffs can argue that
28 either by being a signatory to the account or just by
29 generally being involved with London Greenpeace to any
30 extent, we are therefore responsible for the publication of
31 the fact sheet. There must be evidence of some specific
32 act of assent or distribution directly related to us.
33
34 In fact, just on page 540, which is still the judgment of
35 Parker LJ, he says -- this is the virtually the last thing
36 he says, and it is opposite C:
37
38 "The fact that the defendant is a member of the
39 same organisation as those who published or
40 authorised the printing of the libel can make no
41 difference, for the tort is not committed by the
42 organisation. It is committed by individuals."
43
44 I do not know if you have a copy of that case? I could
45 lend it to you.
46
47 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I have the reference, so I can look it up.
48 I have a copy in my room.
49
50 MS. STEEL: Right. I think just a final point on this is that,
51 in any event, the reality is that the group did not have
52 leaders and that people took responsibility for their own
53 actions. I think the fact that there was not anybody in
54 charge was really shown to be the case by the evidence of
55 Mr. Bishop, who, on day 260, page 29, line 15, when we
56 questioned him about his statement that he had been looking
57 to see who was in charge of the group, he said that it was
58 not immediately apparent who was in charge of meetings,
59 and, if there had been someone in charge of meetings, it
60 would have been immediately apparent.
