Day 304 - 22 Nov 96 - Page 18
1 as representatives of the membership of their association.
2 The courts refused the applications, and their reasoning
3 for doing so is instructive. In the leading case of
4 Merchantile Marine Service Association v Thoms 1915 2 KB 2
5 243 -- I don't think that is in the papers I handed up.
6
7 MR. JUSTICE BELL: It does not matter, because if they are
8 normal law reports I have them in my room.
9
10 MS. STEEL: Right. OK. "It was held that the application for
11 the order should not be granted because the requirements
12 that there be numerous persons having the same interest in
13 the cause was not satisfied." This case concerned the
14 publication of a libel in the journal owned and published
15 by the guild. The guild's affairs were managed by a
16 management committee, presumably an elected one, with
17 officers, including chairman, vice chairman and secretary.
18 It was these officers against whom proceedings were
19 issued. However, the Plaintiff sought an order that the
20 Defendants be appointed to represent all its members of the
21 guild and Lord Justice Swinfon Edie said: "The action is
22 for libel and the Plaintiffs must prove who published the
23 libel and prima facie only those who have published it
24 either by themselves or by their servants or agents or have
25 authorised its publication are liable. The various members
26 of this association are in a wholly different position. If
27 the members of the management committee were sued and if in
28 fact they had authorised the publication of the libel they
29 could raise such defences as might be open to them. The
30 other members of the association, if sued, might say that
31 however defamatory the words complained of might be they
32 did not authorise their publication."
33
34 There must be proof of actual authorisation or by personal
35 participation in publication.
36
37 There is further authority which does not involve an
38 application under order 15, rule 12. In Ricci v Chow 1987
39 3 AER 534, the Plaintiffs brought an action for libel
40 against the Defendant, who was the secretary of the
41 Secretary General of the Seychellois National Movement,
42 SNM, following the publication of the defamatory article in
43 the SNM's journal. The court held that there was no
44 evidence that the Defendant had been in any way responsible
45 for the article, and Lord Justice Parker cited Gatley
46 approvingly, saying: "SNM is an unincorporated association
47 or body of persons" -- and we would emphasise 'body of
48 persons' -- "In such a case as the present the Plaintiffs'
49 only course is, therefore, if he knows who they are, to sue
50 the members of the association who actually published or
51 authorised publication. See Gatley on Libel and Slander,
52 8th edition, 1981, paragraphs 971 to 975."
53
54 Both those cases are where things are actually a step more
55 concrete than with London Greenpeace, because they both
56 involved elected officers or, you know, people with
57 positions of authority within organisations and, as we
58 know, London Greenpeace does not have any positions of
59 authority or any kind of that structure. So the fact that
60 these cases were not allowed against these people in
