IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CHANCERY DIVISION
Case No: HC01C03415
1. As to paragraph 1 of the Particulars of Claim, the Defendants are a civil corporation, which carries on, amongst other things, the business of publishing under the name of Oxford University Press ("OUP"). The affairs of OUP are in the charge of the Delegacy of the University Press, which consists of the Vice-Chancellor, the Proctors, the Assessor, the Chairman of the Finance Committee of the Delegacy, and seventeen members of Congregation appointed by Council.
2. As to paragraph 2 of the Particulars of Claim, it is admitted that the Claimant brought proceedings against the Defendants and that, following the Court of Appeal's judgment, and the enquiry into damages, the parties agreed terms ("the Agreement" - appended as Schedule 1) and it was ordered by consent on 1st July 1992 that all further proceedings in the action be stayed, except for the purpose of carrying into effect those terms.
3. As to paragraph 3 of the Particulars of Claim:
a) It is admitted that the Agreement contained the terms set out.b) Further, Clause 6 of the Agreement stated:
"From the date hereof both the Plaintiff and the Defendants will keep strictly confidential and not disclose, nor cause, permit or howsoever otherwise procure the disclosure of, the terms of the agreement herein to any third party, save as required by law, and save that the terms of the agreement herein may be disclosed to the parties' professional financial advisers and to Clifford Chance and Harvey McGregor QC (for the Defendants) and to Richard White (for the Plaintiff) on condition that the aforesaid agree not to disclose the terms to any third party. These undertakings of confidentiality apply to each and every term of the agreement herein but not to the fact of the settlement and when questioned concerning the settlement, the parties shall reply with words to the following effect: "The parties have agreed to settle their outstanding claims but are bound by mutual undertakings of confidentiality and accordingly are not at liberty to discuss or comment upon the terms of the settlement."
4. It is denied that the matters pleaded in paragraph 4 of the Particulars of Claim are of any relevance to the Claimant's claim. However, the first sentence is admitted, save that;
a) Dr Ryan was no longer a lecturer in politics, having been appointed as Reader;
b) In both his letters of 11th February 1985 and 18th July 1985 Dr Ryan recommended that Making Names needed to be revised.
As to the second and third sentences, it is admitted that the Claimant resubmitted Making Names in February 1986, that the editor considered that the revisions were undoubtedly an improvement, and that Dr Ryan's view was that the book should be rejected.
5. As to paragraph 5 of the Particulars of Claim:
a) It is admitted that Dr Ryan left Oxford for Princeton University, USA, in 1987, and that he was still at Princeton when the parties agreed terms of settlement.
b) It is admitted that Messrs Charkin and Hardy had resigned from OUP when the parties agreed terms of settlement.
c) Clause 7 of the Agreement was as set out in paragraph 3 of the Particulars of Claim and contained a term that the Defendants agreed to make the request to Dr Ryan set out therein.
d) It is admitted that Dr Ryan declined to make a statement to the Claimant's solicitors, but the allegation is irrelevant to the Claimant's claim.
e) It is admitted that Dr Ryan stated in his affidavit that if the work had been published in its form as revised by the Claimant in 1986, it was his opinion that it would have sunk without trace, but the allegation is irrelevant to the Claimant's claim.
6. As to paragraph 6 of the Particulars of Claim:
a) The Claimant purports to rely on without prejudice correspondence in which the Defendants have not waived privilege. He is therefore not entitled to rely on the said correspondence.
b) The relevance of the paragraph to the Claimant's Claim is in any event not understood or conceded.
c) It is in any case denied that the Defendants undertook to notify Dr Ryan, Mr Charkin and Mr Hardy of the "full text" of clause 7.
d) It is denied, if it be alleged, that Dr Ryan was a servant or agent of the Defendants at 29th June 1992.
7. Paragraph 7 of the Particulars of Claim is admitted, save that Dr Ryan was appointed Director of the then Oxford American Institute (subsequently named the Rothermere American Institute) in 1998, the appointment to take effect from 1st January 1999. Dr Ryan's title of Professor is an honorary distinction. He ceased to be Chairman of the Conference of Oxford Colleges on 30th September 1999.
8. As to paragraph 8 of the Particulars of Claim, it is admitted that on 13th April 2001 the Times Higher Education Supplement published the said letter (appended as Schedule 2). The full text of the paragraph complained of read as follows:
"Third, the book wore badly on re-reading; what had seemed fresh, lively and amusing seemed coarse and jeering the third time around. Perhaps the reading climate had changed, perhaps it was always a book that should be read once only. But I never changed my initial view; that OUP should have published a thousand copies and seen if they sold - the press was not poor and a few quid on an outsider was a worthwhile bet."
9. As to paragraph 9 of the Particulars of Claim, the matters pleaded disclose no allegation that the Defendants, their servants or agents published or solicited publication of the letter complained of. If the Claimant intends to imply that by reason of the matters pleaded either in paragraph 9 or in the remainder of the Particulars of Claim Dr Ryan was the Defendant(s), or a servant or agent of the Defendants, at any material time:
a) The Defendants are a civil corporation, as set out above.
b) It is denied that Dr Ryan was a servant of the Defendants at any material time.
c) If, contrary to the Defendants' primary case, Dr Ryan was a servant of the Defendants at any material time, it is denied that he submitted his letter for publication in the course of his employment.
d) It is denied that Dr Ryan was the Defendants' agent for general purposes, or for the purpose of submitting letters for publication, at any material time. Further and in any event, it is denied that Dr Ryan submitted the letter complained of on behalf of the Defendants, or with the authority or apparent authority of the Defendants, or with the Defendants' knowledge, or at the Defendants' instigation. Dr Ryan submitted the letter in his own personal capacity and not in the capacity of any of his positions referred to in the Particulars of Claim.
e) In the premises it is denied that the letter was submitted by the Defendants, their servants or agents.
f) It is in any event denied that the letter or the comments in the letter constitute a serious public derogation of Making Names.
g) In the premises, it is denied that the Defendants have breached clause 7 of the Agreement as alleged or at all.
It is not admitted that the Claimant has suffered damage to his literary reputation and the Claimant is required to prove the same.
10. Further and in any event, on a date or dates unknown to the Defendant, wrongfully and in breach of clause 6 of the Agreement, the Claimant has disclosed information on the website at "www.akme.btinternet.co.uk", the said breaches including but not limited to the following statements:
"Under its [the agreement's] terms, members and officers of the University are for all time subject to certain conditions concerning Malcolm and Making Names which render the book and its thesis (and the University's position with respect to them) unique in the history of publishing"
"Under a term demanded by Oxford in our settlement, when questioned concerning it, I am obliged to reply with these words: "The parties have agreed to settle their outstanding claims but are bound by mutual undertakings of confidentiality and accordingly are not at liberty to discuss or comment upon the terms of the settlement." However, I do not believe that I am in breach of this undertaking to add that under another of the agreement's terms, the University of Oxford is obliged from time to time to disclose to all of its members, servants and agents the text of a reciprocal undertaking binding upon them."
11. In the premises, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief sought, or to any relief.
12. The Claimant's claim for costs is noted, but, in the premises, it is denied that he is entitled to such costs.
13. Save as is expressly admitted or not admitted, the Defendants join issue with the Particulars of Claim.
JANE COLLIER
Statement of Truth
The Defendants believe that the facts stated in this Defence are true. I am duly authorised by the Defendants to make this statement.
Paul Stone, Solicitor, Manches, Solicitors for the Defendants
Served this 20th day of September, 2001, by Manches, 3 Worcester Street, Oxford, OX1 2PZ, Solicitors for the Defendants.
Click for the next item or the first item or the case index in the Malcolm vs. Oxford 2001/2 series. CLICK FOR: THE SURPRISING TRUTH ABOUT OUP'S 'CHARITABLE STATUS' THE OXBRIDGE COLLEGE ACCOUNTS INDEX OR OUP ACCOUNTS INDEX THE MALCOLM vs. OXFORD CASE INDEXES: I (1984-92) AND II (2001-02) THE HISTORY OF AKME AND OF THIS WEBSITE THE AKME OXFORD CUTTINGS LIBRARY THE AKME LITERARY LAW LIBRARY THE AKME STUDENT LAW LIBRARY ABOUT MAKING NAMES ABOUT THE REMEDY THE SITE INDEX e-mail: akme@btinternet.com