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
