Day 177 - 26 Oct 95 - Page 24
1 said was that the vendor of the machinery was saying it
2 would do this, when in fact it would not; and that seemed
3 to me to be clearly defamatory.
4
5 MR. RAMPTON: I quite agree. Also, I read into the words an
6 accusation that he was making a false claim for a patent.
7 There we are.
8
9 Then the note goes on:
10
11 "It is now necessary to treat with caution cases
12 suggesting that it is not defamatory to say that
13 a tradesman's goods are worthless unless the
14 statement implies that he knew their character."
15
16 That, really, I believe, endorses what your Lordship
17 I believe was saying -- and I certainly was saying -- that
18 you can make an accusation or a statement about the quality
19 of the tradesman's good which is so serious that it must
20 necessarily impute at the very least incompetence to the
21 trader and, therefore, be defamatory.
22
23 As cases which the editor thinks should be treated with
24 caution are the two cases in the bundle, Evans v. Harlow
25 and Broomfield v. Greig.
26
27 My Lord, the actual authorities -- I am certainly not going
28 to read everything that is in the bundle. I hope that
29 I have followed the practice directions that have come from
30 the Court of Appeal if what I do is to tell your Lordship
31 which are the passages on which we rely in the authorities
32 and draw particular attention, perhaps by reading them out,
33 to this, that or the other paragraph.
34
35 In Skuse v. Granada TV, we start at page 6, letter F: "The
36 court's approach". We say with respect that this is a very
37 useful, concise and accurate summary of all the law on this
38 question: how does one approach the issue what is the
39 natural and ordinary meaning of the words complained of?
40 The Master of the Rolls has helpfully divided up the
41 principles into, I think, nine headings. We rely on them
42 all, but we draw particular attention to number 3 on page 7
43 at letter D, where the Master of the Rolls says:
44
45 "While limiting its attention to what the
46 defendant has actually said or written, the
47 court should be cautious of an over-elaborate
48 analysis of the material in issue. We were
49 reminded of Diplock L.J.'s cautionary words in
50 Slim v. Daily Telegraph Ltd."
51
52 I will read some of this if I may.
53
54 "'In the spring of 1964 two short letters
55 appeared in the correspondence columns of the
56 "Daily Telegraph" written by Mr. Herbert, they
57 formed part of the robust though desultory
58 controversy about the prospective use by motor
59 vehicles of a public footpath forming part of
60 Upper Mall in Hammersmith. Neither letter can
