Day 312 - 11 Dec 96 - Page 41


     
     1        In fact, the very final comment, I am just jumping ahead a
     2        little bit in the NUM case, was that Mr. Justice French
     3        made the observation that is on page 6 of the judgment,
     4        line A, about 'there is nothing whatsoever in the papers to
     5        suggest the Plaintiffs have suffered any damage financial
     6        or otherwise.  For about a year and a half this action was
     7        at a complete standstill', which is a little bit similar to
     8        this action in 1992 -- through 92 anyway.
     9
    10   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes, what he is saying there, he is being
    11        very careful to say just a few lines before 'forms no part
    12        of his judgment'.
    13
    14   MR. MORRIS:  I understand that.
    15
    16   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  What he is saying is, and I do not think it
    17        will do any harm anyway, his decision, that is.
    18
    19   MR. MORRIS:  Yes.  I understand that.
    20
    21   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I can see that.  I understand your argument,
    22        and even if it is unsuccessful at least you have done this,
    23        you have taken this point so that if there is an appeal on
    24        this point no-one can say you never took it before the
    25        judge below, so you have achieved at least that.  But the
    26        case-----
    27
    28   MR. MORRIS:  I am hoping you are going to decide in our favour.
    29
    30   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I know you are, but you have that fall back
    31        position.  But the other point is this.  I think the case
    32        you gave me this morning was in fact a slander case, and if
    33        I remembered it rightly, of course save for certain
    34        specific kind of slander, you do have to prove special
    35        damage in order to have your cause of action but you do not
    36        with libel which is written more permanently, in a more
    37        permanent form.
    38
    39   MR. MORRIS:  Yes, I was going to bring that up, actually, after
    40        I have just dealt with this, it is just something that
    41        immediately follows from this.
    42
    43   MS. STEEL:  About which case are you referring to?
    44
    45   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  It is one you referred to.  I thought, DNL
    46        Caterers Limited Jackson v D'Ajou.
    47
    48   MS. STEEL:   Right.
    49
    50   MS. STEEL:  I do not know whether that particular point would
    51        actually make any difference whether or not.
    52
    53   MR. RAMPTON:  It would have done, because that case was decided
    54        before the Act of 1952 was passed and it was only by the
    55        act of 1952 that certain slanders were actionable without
    56        good and actual loss.
    57
    58   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes.
    59
    60   MS. STEEL:   But the reason that case was quoted was not about

Prev Next Index