Day 082 - 01 Feb 95 - Page 18

     
     1        members of the public.
     2
     3   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  That is why I did not even bother to
     4        photocopy it from Gattley.  Fair comment does not arise at
     5        all unless the comment is on a matter of public interest,
     6        but it is accepted that all the matters we are dealing with
     7        in this case are matters of public interest.
     8
     9   MR. MORRIS:  The Plaintiffs' admissions, we are a little bit,
    10        well, we are enormously concerned about what happened over
    11        the nutrition admissions which are, in some respects, now
    12        history, but in the light of what happened with the Preston
    13        admission -- that really is about asking the court for some
    14        kind of guidance.
    15
    16   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I understand that; you want to know to what
    17        extent the Plaintiffs are bound by their admissions and to
    18        what extent, if at all, an admission prevents you going
    19        into that topic in the evidence.
    20
    MR. MORRIS:  Yes, and also the point about the spirit of the
    22        admission in terms of wording, whether it is a trick or
    23        that kind of thing.
    24
    25   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  That is covered by two matters which I have
    26        just tried to describe.
    27
    28   MR. MORRIS:  So the counterclaim matters -- actually, when I was
    29        re-reading December, there was quite a lot of indication as
    30        to your thinking during the Day 70 transcript on the
    31        counterclaim matters which clarifies things to some extent.
    32        We still have a little bit of enquiry maybe on that, but
    33        there is a specific matter anyway which is the privileged
    34        document which is outstanding from December.
    35
    36   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Which one is that?
    37
    38   MR. MORRIS:  That was the one that was sent to a potential
    39        witness and ended up as a leaflet.
    40
    MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Your document?
    42
    43   MR. MORRIS:  We wrote to a potential witness.
    44
    45   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  The one that Mr. Atkinson was going to look
    46        into the background to?
    47
    48   MR. MORRIS:  Yes.
    49
    50   MS. STEEL:  It did not end up as a leaflet.  The Plaintiffs 
    51        claimed that it was a leaflet. 
    52 
    53   MR. MORRIS:  There is also clarification, and maybe discussion
    54        or argument, over their obligation for discovery under the
    55        counterclaim defence, they have put up a defence saying
    56        that the words in the leaflet are true (sic), the words in
    57        the London Greenpeace fact sheet, the subject of this
    58        action, are true (sic) as a defence -- no, I am sorry about
    59        that -- are not true, otherwise this case would not have
    60        lasted so long!