Day 242 - 29 Apr 96 - Page 53
1 Greenpeace (London) and Directors of the activities of the
2 McLibel support campaign" and then it goes on.
3
4 I am not entirely sure what is meant by "directors" because
5 "directors" is a bit of a legal term I think, but even if
6 it is not that, I do not quite see where the evidence is
7 for that either.
8
9 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes.
10
11 MS. STEEL: They were the only things that I wanted to bring
12 up.
13
14 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I assume in 7(b), Mr. Atkinson, "directors"
15 means "people directing".
16
17 MR. ATKINSON: It could just mean people directing the
18 activities involved.
19
20 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I will treat it as an objection, that this is
21 an objection to the further particulars, which the
22 Defendants are perfectly entitled to make, but I think the
23 voluntary particulars concerned really do no more than seek
24 to give the Defendants further information of what the
25 Plaintiffs would rely on in support of the contentions
26 which are already set out in the pleadings.
27
28 So far as the two specific matters which concern Ms. Steel,
29 I take paragraph 1(c)(ix) where it refers to an inference
30 to be drawn merely to be an indication that the Plaintiffs
31 will invite me to draw that inference, no more than that,
32 and whether I draw that inference or not will have to be
33 seen.
34
35 It is doing no more than giving the Defendants notice of an
36 argument which is to be put. The same, it seems to me, to
37 apply to 7(b), which sets out what the Defendants' actual
38 contention is. Not, it seems to me, making a new
39 allegation, because it is said elsewhere in the pleadings
40 that the Defendants had directed the activities of the
41 McLibel support campaign. Whether I am prepared to make
42 such a finding, again I will have to see on the evidence.
43
44 I do not think either of those matters add anything of
45 substance to what is set out in the pleadings.
46
47 MR. MORRIS: Yes, the one thing that did actually cross our
48 minds at the time, we did not bring it up because we were
49 not sure of the status of these voluntary particulars,
50 actually it relates to the earlier particulars, just really
51 a question about the attempt or the bringing in of the
52 early day motion by Jeremy Corbyn MP as some kind of
53 example of publication. Obviously, Jeremy Corbyn MP and
54 Parliament is a legal body and he is protected by
55 privilege, and whether that is not something which should
56 be -- well, to clarify the status of that, as I understand
57 it, that cannot be used by the Plaintiffs in any way, shape
58 or form, in fact, should be struck out, any reference to
59 what -- as far as I understand it, an MP is a legally
60 protected ------
