Al Rajhi Banking & Investment Corporation v Wall Street Journal Europe SPRL

Thursday, 12 August 2004

LORD JUSTICE SEDLEY: These libel actions are before the court this morning for two principal purposes. One is to deal so far as possible with outstanding elements in the applications for permission to appeal, outstanding in the sense that they are elements on which I have so far refused permission to appeal but for which the application stands renewed. The other is to use the presence of the parties, and I am extremely grateful to all of them for having attended for this purpose, in order to make the most useful arrangements that I can for the hearing of the appeals.

In case, 2004/1105, Al Rajhi Banking Corporation v The Wall Street Journal, Mr Desmond Browne QC has renewed his application for permission to appeal which I initially refused on the papers. Having read his further submissions pursuant to the new Practice Direction I am persuaded that it is a proper case for the grant of permission to appeal. In the associated proceedings 2004/1106 there is no need for any order because the costs are entirely consequential. The same is true in 2004/1108. The costs there too are consequential on the matter on which in 2004/1107 I have granted permission to appeal.

The other outstanding application for permission to appeal is in relation to the presumption of falsity in Mohammed Jameel v Wall Street Journal, 2004/0221. That is not an application which it seems to me right to deal with today. I refused permission to appeal because there was no plea of justification in that case. By contrast, I granted permission in 2004/0725 where there was a plea of justification and the presumption of falsity therefore appeared to me to have substance. It seems to me that the renewed application in 2004/0221 will be much better dealt with by the full court which is going to have to deal with the issue of principle in 2004/0725. They can decide whether there is anything in 2004/0221 that makes it right to put the matter on the agenda.

This leaves the question of how best to allocate the court's time in trying the appeals for which permission has been granted. The defendant's solicitors, Finers Stephens Innocent, and this morning Mr Desmond Browne, have very helpfully submitted tabulated accounts of the issues suggesting a possible division of labour. Having considered them and having heard Mr Browne, Mr Rushbrook and Mr Ward from the defendant's solicitors, I am going to direct that the first three-day slot which at present is fixed to start on 18 or 19 October should be devoted to appeal 2004/0221, so far as that involves the Reynolds privilege issue and the Bonnick v Morris issue, and 2004/0732 which relates also to issues of qualified privilege. One cannot be sure, but Mr Browne's judgment that this will be enough to occupy three days seems to me sound.

This leaves all the other issues to be heard in the second slot, which it is intended should be in or around early December before a court of the same constitution as the first group of appeals. It will include, therefore, the presumption of damage issue in 2004/0221; the question of the burden of proof of falsity in 2004/0221Z; 2004/0725 concerning the same issue and the question of the international legal and ethical obligations of banks; 2004/1105 in which I have now given permission to appeal on international banking norms, and 2004/1107 which concerns disclosure on the same questions. It will also include 2004/1540, the action between Mr Yousef Jameel and Dow Jones in which Eady J has granted permission to appeal in relation to the presumption of injury or harm and in which I have granted permission to appeal on five further issues that do not fit readily into any of the slots so far identified.

If all of these can be satisfactorily dealt with in the second three-day slot, that will be admirable. But facing reality, it will be necessary to make allowance for the possibility that the majority of issues in the Dow Jones case, 2004/1540, may not be able to be reached. The parties should prepare their skeleton arguments and the presentation of their oral submissions so as to make it feasible to hive off the latter group of issues to a further date if that should become necessary.

I conclude by expressing my real gratitude to the parties for cooperating with the court in providing for what I hope will be the orderly disposal of this complicated group of appeals.

(Applications granted; application 2004/0221 adjourned to the Full Court; costs to be costs in the appeal in relation to the Applicant's permission applications; no order as to costs in relation to the rest).