Day 313 - 13 Dec 96 - Page 27
1 be taken into account is that we consider that part of the
2 purpose of these documents was as part of McDonald's
3 attempts to stifle free speech by branding all its critics
4 as liars, and therefore partly intimidating them into not
5 wanting to make the same criticisms because nobody wants to
6 be branded a liar, and also partly as an attempt to
7 discredit their critics and therefore ensure that they are
8 not really listened to.
9
10 In our view, this approach from a major multi-national,
11 which spends 1.8 billion dollars every year on advertising
12 and promotions and putting its own point of view across,
13 the public would view such an approach as a very serious
14 allegation and step to make and, as a consequence, would
15 demand substantial damages to reflect the seriousness of
16 the approach.
17
18 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes. Thank you.
19
20 MS. STEEL: I think that is it on the counterclaim.
21
22 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes.
23
24 MR. MORRIS: Just one last point. I did have a document here
25 which I think was the basis of a submission we made in June
26 1993, but if I just say that throughout that timescale we
27 were making repeated applications for discovery. I do not
28 know if this document was served. It was what I read out
29 eventually.
30
31 MR. JUSTICE BELL: That was in the happy days before I had
32 anything to do with this case, so I do not know anything
33 about that at all.
34
35 MR. MORRIS: The point I was making was it will be in the
36 correspondence. I refer to notice being given on Thursday,
37 17th June, 1993. We gave notice to the Plaintiffs asking
38 for our adjourned summons regarding Plaintiffs' discovery
39 and witness timetabling be restored. There was a whole
40 period when we were trying to get discovery from the
41 Plaintiffs. In it I stated that out of the 75 pleaded
42 general employment issues there had been no documents
43 discovered at all about 50 of those 75 pleaded matters,
44 etcetera. Nothing on rainforests, except for about 14
45 pages, had been disclosed.
46
47 So, all I am saying is that there was a whole period when
48 we were trying for discovery and I think, really, when we
49 won that Court of Appeal about the order of procedure, then
50 I think in that Court of Appeal ruling in our favour they
51 did say something like a party cannot avoid its obligation
52 for discovery by attempting to strike out parts of its
53 opposition party case before trial, and it would have
54 implications for discovery before trial. So that is all
55 I am saying, really. It was part of an on-going process of
56 attempting to get discovery that we are entitled to.
57
58 Just a few points related to rainforest submissions.
59
60 MR. RAMPTON: My Lord, I am not sure about this. Your Lordship
