Day 186 - 10 Nov 95 - Page 39


     
     1
     2   MR. MORRIS:  So we do not have to go back to this case, I cannot
     3        find it, but I am sure it said somewhere that he also said
     4        it would lead to food poisoning somewhere, but in any case,
     5        yes, it had Lord President on page 565 in the middle of his
     6        paragraph said the words "poisonous and unfit for human
     7        food".  So, even if the word "poisonous" was used, it still
     8        was not considered defamatory.
     9
    10        The last thing ---
    11
    12   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes?
    13
    14   MR. MORRIS:  -- the final thing I have to say on this authority
    15        is that on the top of page 566:  "To allege that a baker
    16        keeps adulterated bread or flour in his premises is,
    17        I think, actionable for to say that a baker keeps
    18        adulterated bread or flour is to impute dishonesty to
    19        him".
    20
    21        May be I did not explain it very well before, what I was
    22        trying to say about the nutrition guide is dishonesty, I
    23        would submit, has to refer to the product itself, i.e. it
    24        is called a beef burger but actually it has rabbit meat in
    25        it or something like that.  It cannot just be to do with
    26        their nutrition guide not telling the whole truth.  That
    27        cannot really be dishonesty in the context of criticising
    28        their food.  If that is what the Plaintiffs are complaining
    29        about, then to criticise a leaflet by the Company cannot be
    30        the kind of fraud or dishonesty which would make what is
    31        not defamatory somehow become defamatory, which I think the
    32        Plaintiffs are clutching at straws there, in trying to get
    33        around this case.
    34
    35        Then it goes on to say:  "The only question then is,
    36        whether this innuendo is admissible", etcetera.
    37        Mr. Rampton has said when he started off in his
    38        introduction that he was not concerned with any
    39        innuendo  -----
    40
    41   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  No, that is not right, I am afraid.
    42
    43   MR. RAMPTON:  No, my Lord.  That is a misunderstanding, I am
    44        afraid.  In those days, my Lord, in the middle of the 19th
    45        Century in the Court of Session innuendo was used loosely
    46        to cover both true and false innuendoes.  We are concerned
    47        here with false innuendoes; we are not concerned with true
    48        innuendoes.
    49
    50   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  You see, the innuendo referred to in the 
    51        third line there must be what is now called a false 
    52        innuendo, that is, one which anyone can imply from the 
    53        words without having any special knowledge.  I mean, the
    54        innuendo which the Lord President is referring to there is
    55        the imputation of dishonesty.
    56
    57   MR. RAMPTON:  Its natural and ordinary meaning.
    58
    59   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  From the words themselves, without any
    60        special knowledge.

Prev Next Index