Day 304 - 22 Nov 96 - Page 17

     
     1        emphasis on our involvement in London Greenpeace and they
     2        contend that London Greenpeace was concerned with the
     3        dissemination of the fact sheet as part of a campaign
     4        against McDonald's.  This really raises the question of:
     5        what is London Greenpeace?
     6
     7        The most informal grouping recognised in law is the
     8        unincorporated association, and a definition of an
     9        unincorporated association was given in the case of
    10        Conservative & Unionist Central Office v Burrell (Inspector
    11        of Taxes) 1982 1 WLR 1522.  That is cited in Halsbury's
    12        Laws, which held that:  "An unincorporated association
    13        exists where two or more persons are bound together for one
    14        or more common purposes by mutual undertaking each having
    15        mutual duties and obligations in an organisation which has
    16        laws identifying in whom control of the organisation and
    17        its funds is vested and which can be joined or left at
    18        will."
    19
    20        We would say that London Greenpeace clearly does not
         satisfy even these criteria, loose as they are.  Given the
    22        absence of rules, the absence of mutual undertakings,
    23        mutual duties or obligations, we would say it cannot be.  I
    24        mean, it is not even an unincorporated association, so it
    25        will not be an entity that was recognised by law.  In fact,
    26        to that point, Mr. Nicholson gave evidence that he had been
    27        advised that McDonald's could not sue London Greenpeace as
    28        "it was an unincorporated association with no legal status
    29        and therefore could not be sued in its own right as a
    30        right, and it became necessary to identify members of the
    31        group responsible for its distribution."
    32
    33        So the effect of that is that whilst it is permissible to
    34        sue individual members, it cannot be on the basis of simple
    35        involvement in the group.
    36
    37        The test to be applied in imputing liability for libel can
    38        be drawn by reference to authorities involving
    39        unincorporated associations sued in libel.  These
    40        authorities support the proposition that joint liability
         for libel extends no further than has already been
    42        established by case law on the question of publication.
    43        I.e., all those who as individuals participate in or
    44        authorise the publication are jointly liable.
    45
    46        Then, on the question of joint liability flowing from
    47        membership of an unincorporated association, and on that
    48        point I think it should be noted that there is no
    49        membership of London Greenpeace, Gatley says:  "Where a
    50        libel it contained in a journal published by an 
    51        unincorporated association the Plaintiffs' only course is 
    52        to sue the officers or members of the association who have 
    53        authorised the libel and who has directed its publication."
    54          That is paragraph 975.
    55
    56        Obviously, the important part of that is that the only
    57        course is identifying the particular people responsible.
    58        Gatley cites as authority for this proposition a number of
    59        cases which involved applications for an order under order
    60        15, rule 12, that the Defendants in each case be appointed