Day 280 - 17 Jul 96 - Page 04
1 of peculiar sort of quasi micas role, I suspect, because it
2 does not directly affect us.
3
4 MR. JUSTICE BELL: No. I mean, there may be matters where you
5 have put forward a construction of events, or a suggestion
6 as to the significance of events, where I may or may not
7 accept it in due course.
8
9 MR. STARMER: Yes. No, I accept that. Just starting at the
10 beginning, I do not need to say very much in relation to
11 paragraph 1, save that I hope I have summarised--
12
13 MR. JUSTICE BELL: You have got it right.
14
15 MR. STARMER: -- summarised correctly what it is I am intending
16 to do this morning. Paragraph 1 is, in a nutshell, what
17 the case is for the defendants. Obviously, they deny the
18 Plaintiff's claim, and that is clear to everybody, arising
19 from the leaflet, but argue, as it were, in the alternative
20 that if they are liable in damages they in turn ought to be
21 entitled to recover a contribution from any other person
22 liable in respect of the same damage. That would obviously
23 go somewhat wider than the proposed third parties, but that
24 is the scope of their right under the 1978 Act.
25
26 The Plaintiff's claim is now largely based on the
27 Defendant's involvement in the anti-McDonald's activities
28 of Greenpeace London, and I have gone through the
29 pleadings, but it appears to me that the Defendants are now
30 seeking to claim damages from the Defendants (sic) in
31 relation to all publication of the leaflet anywhere in the
32 jurisdiction over a given period of time and, as I
33 understand it, the fixed dates are October '89 and 20th
34 September 1990 but the claim potentially extends back to
35 when limitation would have stopped the claim, which is
36 about the 20th September, '87.
37
38 The claim in respect of these particular third
39 parties, Anthony Pocklington, Brian Bishop and Allan Clare
40 is that, by their own admissions, they have not only
41 involved themselves in the activities but, in fact, have
42 distributed the leaflet.
43
44 So far as the nature of the Plaintiff's claim against
45 the Defendants is concerned, obviously, the Court is fully
46 familiar with that and I have only highlighted particular
47 parts that are relevant. I have gone back to the original
48 statement of claim because at that stage the claim was
49 based on the six dates I have set down there.
50
51 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes.
52
53 MR. STARMER: In relation to Helen Steel, the Defendant's case
54 is that she had attended on some of the days. The
55 Plaintiffs case -- I am sorry, the Plaintiff's case is that
56 she attended on a couple of the dates and she had, by her
57 involvement in the group, effectively been party to or
58 procured the distribution on the other dates. The same was
59 said of Mr. Morris. I think there is one date in common,
60 and there is a different date on which it was said he was
