Day 312 - 11 Dec 96 - Page 21


     
     1   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes, five minutes.
     2
     3                          (Short adjournment)
     4
     5   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes.
     6
     7   MS. STEEL:   Hopefully, you have a copy of the document I will
     8        be going through.
     9
    10   MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes.
    11
    12   MS. STEEL:   There are a few corrections that need to be made to
    13        it, and I deal with them as I go through it.  This is what
    14        we say the legal framework should be for deciding on the
    15        matters in issue in this case: the first point is that it
    16        is our view that multi-nationals should not have a right to
    17        sue their critics for libel, and specifically we firstly
    18        submit that the Plaintiffs should not be accorded a cause
    19        of action in libel.  It is of the highest public importance
    20        that Corporations such as the first and second Plaintiffs
    21        should be open to uninhibited public criticism.  The threat
    22        of civil actions for defamation places an undesirable
    23        fetter on the freedom to express such criticism, and it is
    24        contrary to the public interest for multi-nationals to have
    25        any right at common law to maintain an action for damages
    26        for defamation.
    27
    28        In other words, the principles extracted from Derbyshire
    29        County Council v Times Newspapers 1993 Appeal Cases 534 in
    30        relation to local authorities apply equally and should be
    31        applied to multi-national corporations, particularly those
    32        of the nature and scope of the Plaintiffs.
    33
    34        It says here 'see appendix 1'.  That is actually what
    35        Mr. Morris is going to go on to with the NUM case, so we
    36        will leave that until he comes on to that.
    37
    38   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes.
    39
    40   MS. STEEL:   No. 2: effectively, the Defendants submit that this
    41        case should be struck out even at this late stage because
    42        neither of the Plaintiffs have put in either evidence that
    43        they have suffered any financial loss whatever.  The basis
    44        for this submission is that the Plaintiffs should not be
    45        allowed to take advantage of a rule that was introduced and
    46        has been applied to safeguard the reputation of
    47        individuals, namely the rule that in actions for libel the
    48        Plaintiffs need not prove actual loss and that loss is
    49        presumed, because the rationale for this rule is that a
    50        living person's reputation is incapable of quantification
    51        and that a defamatory allegation against such an individual
    52        is presumed to affect his or her whole being.  Damage has
    53        to be presumed because no evidence could realistically be
    54        called to prove the nature and extent of the damage to his
    55        or her character.
    56
    57        Moving on to No 3.  Multi-nationals and/or large
    58        corporations such as the Plaintiffs are in an entirely
    59        different position.  They do not have a general reputation
    60        which is protected by the court; a trading corporation only

Prev Next Index