Day 309 - 03 Dec 96 - Page 60
1 McDonald's paper bag on the pavement which somebody has
2 dropped, he would say to himself, well, they are probably
3 getting some of the rainforest trees in their paper bags.
4 Though I do not believe that the ordinary reader would
5 think that the English company was in the rainforest with
6 the Agent Orange. So, to that extent, it is more seriously
7 defamatory of the Corporation, and when one comes down to
8 it it perhaps there really is not all that much of a
9 difference.
10
11 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Might not the same argument apply to the
12 "McDonald's is one of several giant Corporations with
13 investments in vast tracts of land in poor countries sold
14 to them...", et cetera?
15
16 MR. RAMPTON: Yes, it does.
17
18 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Evicting.
19
20 MR. RAMPTON: I agree it does. Yes, it does, but to a much
21 lesser extent, I believe, I would submit, because the
22 benefit which the UK company, in the mind of the ordinary
23 reader, might be thought to be getting from the destruction
24 of the rainforest per se is likely to be more indirect.
25 That is all. Although I suppose I do not think it matters
26 very much, but I suppose one could equate the import of
27 paper bags made of rainforest trees with the import of
28 cattle feed grown on land which had been owned by small
29 farmers but driven off.
30
31 There is probably not much difference. Both of those
32 confer a direct benefit on the UK company.
33
34 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Of course, the average reader has heard of
35 McDonald's well enough but knows nothing about the company
36 structure at all. Is there any problem for you there? It
37 is not pleaded as such, but are we getting into it is not a
38 question of a true or legal innuendo because the equivalent
39 there would be that although McDonald's is referred to some
40 people know that John Williams and Company is part of
41 McDonald's even though it does not share the same name.
42
43 MR. RAMPTON: Fortunately for the English -- I say fortunately,
44 or unfortunately, it depends how you look at it -- they
45 share the same name. I do not believe it to be the law,
46 though I am certainly open to correction, that you have to
47 know the precise name of the company which is running the
48 business in this country. If I say X and Company, the real
49 name might be X and Company Paper Products Company Limited,
50 but that does not matter at all. It is still an
51 identification of X and Company, and the fact that they
52 happen to share the same name as their parent really cannot
53 make any difference to that.
54
55 MR. JUSTICE BELL: So, all it really is, it reflects badly, you
56 would say, on whoever is running the enterprise overall,
57 and, in so far as it is different, whoever is running it in
58 this country where I am reading the leaflet?
59
60 MR. RAMPTON: That must be right. There again, as I said first
