Day 313 - 13 Dec 96 - Page 03
1 As far as I can see, there is no purpose for them going
2 in. The only purpose that McDonald's have put forward is
3 to show that we did not apologise and we fought the case.
4 Everybody knows that, so what is their purpose in going
5 in? Yes, obviously, we believe that some of the letters
6 were without prejudice written by lawyers, and so on.
7
8 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Is 'without prejudice' on any of them?
9
10 MS. STEEL: I do not know.
11
12 MR. RAMPTON: My Lord, the position is quite simple. This is
13 inter-parties correspondence, letters written on -- I agree
14 about the attendance notes, your Lordship can perhaps not
15 mind filleting the bundle and moving the attendance notes.
16
17 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I would rather someone else do it.
18
19 MR. RAMPTON: We will do that. This is inter-parties
20 correspondence. At the outset of the proceedings, just
21 after the writ had been issued, letters written on behalf
22 of the Defendants, none of it is without prejudice. It
23 represents the Defendants' response through their
24 solicitors which, as I said the other day, corresponds,
25 although in less lurid terms, with their response in their
26 public documents, as I showed your Lordship the other day.
27
28 MS. STEEL: Being what? That we are fighting the case and that
29 we are not going to apologise, which is widely accepted by
30 every party.
31
32 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I am going to bring the argument to a close.
33 It is perfectly proper for me to look at inter-parties
34 correspondence, that is, correspondence between the parties
35 and correspondence between solicitors who were on the
36 record and acting for you at the time. With Barlows it is
37 correspondence between the parties. There is no question
38 of me accepting that something which Barlow Lyde & Gilbert
39 have written to your solicitors in one of their letters is
40 evidence of the truth of what is said, but I can see
41 absolutely no objection to seeing this correspondence
42 unless there is 'without prejudice' written on one of the
43 letters.
44
45 MS. STEEL: There are all the accusations in their letters.
46 But the point is there just is no point in them going
47 forwards, they must be being put forward by the Plaintiffs
48 in an effort to prejudice you.
49
50 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I will judge that for myself. It is for me to
51 judge whether there is anything relevant, admissible and to
52 be gained from them or not. I am going to have to do that
53 in a thousand contexts in this case, and that may be one of
54 them.
55
56 The other is this: at some stage I would like someone to
57 give me the reference for the ruling on Ms. Steel and
58 Mr. Morris' previous application to the European Court of
59 Human Rights in relation to lack of availability of legal
60 aid in defamation actions. I have looked at it in the
