Day 280 - 17 Jul 96 - Page 13

     
     1        appear to be putting his claim that highly, that he is
     2        entitled to get damages for the George Roby event, and
     3        unless and until that claim is withdrawn or dismissed these
     4        Defendants are potentially liable for that and if they are
     5        found liable then proposed third parties would be equally
     6        liable.
     7
     8             So far as the -- I recognise the Court has a
     9        discretion because of the stage at which this application
    10        is made.
    11
    12   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes, yes.
    13
    14   MR. STARMER:   And I say that should be exercised in favour of
    15        the Defendant for listed reasons.  The amendment came at a
    16        late stage, and for the reasons that I referred to earlier
    17        the Defendants could, at best, have put a very, very thin
    18        unfocused case against the proposed third parties which
    19        could easily have been met.  They could not have put a
    20        proper case until the amendment was made.  The full extent
         of the third parties' involvement was not known until the
    22        evidence was completed.  For example, Mr. Bishop's
    23        attending and staffing of the stall at the George Roby,
    24        which I do not think was referred to in his witness
    25        statement.
    26
    27             The Plaintiffs, for their part, are not prejudiced by
    28        the issue of the proceedings because their claim for
    29        damages at least remains absolutely unaffected by it.
    30
    31   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Well, save insofar as there may be a delay.
    32        I have read what you have said about that, but there is a
    33        prejudice to any party, is there not, in the conclusion of
    34        the main action being delayed?
    35
    36   MR. STARMER:  I accept that--
    37
    38   MR. JUSTICE BELL:   One might say especially so in defamation
    39        proceedings.  But--
    40
    MR. STARMER:   Well, I accept that, but if there is any delay,
    42        however short, that is prejudiced in this sense, but in
    43        these proceedings where there has been the evidence of
    44        publication where, if the third parties were joined now,
    45        there would be probably very little need for any further
    46        evidence, or at least only limited further evidence,
    47        because the issues would be very narrow, it would be
    48        probably the scope of involvement, and consent.  I cannot
    49        see that the proposed third parties would be raising any
    50        other issues.
    51
    52   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  It is fair of me to assume that inquiry
    53        agents would want to take legal advice, is it not?
    54
    55   MR. STARMER:   I would say so, yes.
    56
    57   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  And that before they were given advice on
    58        whether they wanted to join in the argument about whether
    59        parts of the leaflet were defamatory and, if so, whether
    60        they had been justified, quite apart from any of the issues