Day 304 - 22 Nov 96 - Page 15

     
     1        letter the Plaintiffs contended inter alia that by being
     2        present at the January meeting and not dissenting from the
     3        authorisation in instruction given in December the other
     4        two Defendant members must be taken personally to have
     5        authorised the secretary to act as he did".  And the court
     6        found against that argument.
     7
     8        It is the middle of the next column at the top, about the
     9        middle of the remaining text on this part of the case.
    10        This was the finding, Justice Blaine:  "However, the
    11        presence and non-dissent of the other two Defendant members
    12        at the January meeting did not represent a sufficiently
    13        positive act on their part to include them as having
    14        instructed the secretary as their agent or expressly
    15        instructed him in any capacity and they would be entitled
    16        to judgment".
    17
    18        So, in that case it was held that the mere presence and
    19        non-dissent of the two Defendant members who were present
    20        at the later meeting, where the decision of a previous
         meeting was reported, did not represent a sufficiently
    22        positive act on their part to include them as having
    23        participated in the publication and distribution.
    24
    25   MR. JUSTICE BELL:   Yes.
    26
    27   MS. STEEL:   We consider that this is the approach that should
    28        be adopted in this case.
    29
    30        Moving on:  "It is also essential to prove publication to a
    31        third party.  It is not necessary for the Plaintiff to
    32        prove directly that the words complained of were actually
    33        brought to the knowledge of some third person.  The
    34        Plaintiff must prove facts from which it can be reasonably
    35        inferred that there was publication to a third party".
    36
    37        That seems to be a reference to, you would not have to
    38        actually prove that somebody read it, if they had been
    39        given it, but "a Plaintiff must serve in his Statement of
    40        Claim particulars of the persons to whom the alleged libel
         was published."  That is RSC Order 812, and Order 18, Rule
    42        12/3.  See also Davey v Bentick 1893 1 QB 185, Court of
    43        Appeal.  That is the second one that is actually on the
    44        list of authorities, so you have got a copy of that one.
    45
    46        "If the statement complained of is sent directly to the
    47        party to which it is written there is no publication of
    48        it", as per Lord Esher in Pullman v Hill 1891 1 QB
    49        page 527.  That is the fourth one on the list, so you have
    50        a copy of that one as well.  It states that "publication is 
    51        not actionable unless it is a publication to a third 
    52        party.  'A' cannot sue 'B' for defaming him to 'A' himself, 
    53        or to 'B' himself.  That is to say, where 'B' reads to
    54        himself his libel on 'A' and then locks it away, 'A' must
    55        prove that 'B' defamed him to 'C'."
    56
    57        Therefore, the Plaintiffs, suing as a corporate entity,
    58        cannot rely on the fact that Sid Nicholson, Terry Caroll or
    59        any employee or agent of the Plaintiff obtained copies of
    60        the fact sheet as publications, and the point at issue is