Day 052 - 21 Nov 94 - Page 29
1 MR. JUSTICE BELL: There is authority for the proposition that
2 the Defendants should plead what they say the meaning is,
3 at least if they say that it is different to the one
4 proposed by the Plaintiffs.
5
6 MR. RAMPTON: There are two cases; there is Lucas Box v.
7 Newsgroup and there is Prager v. The Times which is also in
8 that small clip of files. It is not that the Defendant has
9 to say what he says the meaning of the words complained of
10 is directly, though I must say, despite the best efforts of
11 Lord Justice Mustill, I find it difficult to see a
12 distinction. What the Defendant does have to do is to say
13 what the defamatory charge against the Plaintiff which he
14 is justifying.
15
16 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes.
17
18 MR. RAMPTON: I do not believe -----
19
20 MR. JUSTICE BELL: But on route to that he is to say what
21 meaning he is proposing is ------
22
23 MR. RAMPTON: If the meaning is one either which the words are
24 not capable of bearing, or which has a meaning which is not
25 defamatory of the Plaintiff, the court will strike the
26 defence out. So, it has to be a defamatory charge which
27 can be found -- it may not be the same charge as the
28 Plaintiff complains of, of course -- it has to be
29 defamatory charge which is capable of being found within
30 the libel and which the Defendant says is true.
31
32 All we have at the moment from the Defendants side as until
33 -- at any rate, on the original pleading all you had from
34 the Plaintiffs' side was this word "link" or "association"
35 or "relationship" which I have to say, with due respect to
36 the learned pleaders on both sides, is frankly useless as
37 the statement of the nature of the case, which is why ever
38 since I started arguing this case, I have made my position
39 absolutely crystal clear, which is that the Plaintiffs'
40 complaint is that the leaflet accuses them of selling food
41 which causes degenerative diseases, whilst at the same time
42 saying that you cannot propose a causal relationship
43 between diet and cancer in the same way that you can
44 between diet and heart disease or smoking and lung cancer.
45
46 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I must say I have used the word "bland" in
47 relation to "linked with" or "associated with", and it had
48 occurred to me that at some stage I was bound to have to
49 ask both sides what was meant there, because it could mean
50 any number of the things, but there we are.
51
52 MR. RAMPTON: My Lord, we now have now abandoned it in favour of
53 what I at least (and I know Mr. Atkinson) have always felt
54 that it did mean, which is the new pleading. My Lord, it
55 does not end with what was brought to the attention of the
56 Defendants in court and by way of transcript, newspaper
57 report and judgment after court; it goes much further back
58 than that in relation to the question of whether they knew
59 what the Plaintiffs' case was, because the expert witnesses
60 whose statements were exchanged on both sides --
