Day 312 - 11 Dec 96 - Page 42
1 proof of loss, it was about the fact that the words,
2 allegedly defamatory words, are incapable of attribution to
3 a multi-national corporation, i.e. that you cannot say a
4 multi-national corporation is a murderer or a forger.
5
6 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes. Very well.
7
8 MS. STEEL: It is on a different point.
9
10 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Well, as you know, when I gave the ruling on
11 meaning I had something to say about the circumstances in
12 which a company could sue. I have to say that if I had
13 what Lord Reed said in the Derbyshire case in mind I might
14 have said it much more shortly just by referring to parts
15 of his judgment I referred to the other day. The last
16 thing I want to do at the moment is just to argue back
17 about the matter.
18
19 MR. MORRIS: No, I understand.
20
21 MR. JUSTICE BELL: What I would like you to do, you have this,
22 you have put the cases in front of me to consider, you have
23 made general points about the way you say I should go if
24 I think I do have any constitutional power to move the law
25 on in the particular circumstances of this case. What I am
26 encouraging you to do is not dwell on the matter but just
27 make sure you have your main points over.
28
29 MR. MORRIS: Yes.
30
31 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Repetition when you prove it, I have taken
32 them on board.
33
34 MR. MORRIS: Yes. I understand that, I am trying to skate
35 through it. Obviously, formally I will adopt the document
36 I have served.
37
38 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes.
39
40 MR. MORRIS: If I can just mention the other point I would like
41 to make, a couple of points, which is the NUM case, by
42 dealing with the British Coal Corporation and removing its
43 right to sue for libel that the difference between the
44 British Coal Corporation, or that kind of organisation and
45 a multi-national corporation, so-called difficulty between
46 a so-called public body and a so-called private body are
47 increasingly blurred, and we would say that the effect of
48 the NUM judgment is to ask the question: is it in the
49 public interest that multi-national corporations have the
50 right to sue their critics?
51
52 So, and a point I think to make is that, for example, the
53 British Coal Corporation, which the NUM was given
54 unfettered right to criticise, has now been replaced
55 I think by, is it, RJB Mining, or something. It has been
56 privatised, the mines have been privatised. And surely the
57 same should still apply?
58
59 So, that is what we are saying.
60
