A BUSINESS'S consultant claimed in the High Court yesterday he was libelled in a letter written in 1990 when the Sandoz pharmaceutical plant at Ringaskiddy, Co Cork, was being established.
Mr Stanley Bell (57), now living at Greythorn Park, Glenageary, Co Dublin, is suing Mr Winifried Pedersen, stated to be project director for the Ringaskiddy plant and Sandoz Ringaskiddy Ltd.
Mr Bell claims at the time he was employed under a written consulting agreement by Badger Catalytic Ltd, a subsidiary of a US firm, United Engineering, Philadelphia. By agreement between Badger and Sandoz, it is claimed, he was delegated to act as liaison/procurement consultant for the establishment of the Sandoz operation at Ringaskiddy.
Mr Paul O'Higgins SC, for Mr Bell, said he was to deal with nontechnical aspects of procurement. He did not have a technical role.
Mr Bell claims the defendants libelled him in a letter dated November 29th, 1990, addressed to Mr Dave Parsons, manager of products, United Engineering, and circulated to Mr Gerry Hourihan, a senior engineer with Sandoz Mr Hans Klettner, a Sandoz employee Mr Jeff Osborne, managing director of Badger Catalytic in the UK and other persons unknown to him.
It is claimed that in the letter it was stated Mr Hourihan had informed Mr Bell he had to deal with a vast amount of complaints from the "Irish technical scene.
In the letter, it was also stated. "One of the causes of these problems is related to your liaison person to the Irish scene Stanley Bell. He is just not familiar enough with the engineering and technical oriented Irish matters' and it is very unfair to expect from him a proper judgment which company or supplier has merits for Sandoz and which not. It is a firm request from my side that Stanley Bell's involvement in our project is phased out."
Mr Bell claims the words meant or were understood to mean he was incompetent as liaison/procurement consultant for Sandoz and that he should be replaced.
The defence denies the claims and pleads the words do not bear and were not understood to bear the meanings alleged. It says the words were not defamatory. Alternatively, the letter was published solely to Mr Parsons and Mr Osborne, and to Mr Hourihan and Mr Klettner, and was privileged.
The hearing continues.