Day 186 - 10 Nov 95 - Page 36
1 MS. STEEL: OK.
2
3 MR. JUSTICE BELL: What I thought you were talking about was G,
4 that if they were not going to pursue G, "Well, can we
5 strike it out now, please?"
6
7 MS. STEEL: That was one of them.
8
9 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes. I just saw no useful point in that; and
10 one does not make orders just for the sake of making them,
11 since the one thing which is going to come out of this
12 argument is a ruling by me on what the leaflet means so far
13 as what we have called "nutrition" is concerned and whether
14 that meaning is defamatory. If I find a meaning which is
15 defamatory and the case goes on for further evidence, if
16 need be, and certainly further argument in due course, if
17 I find a meaning and then go on to say that, in my
18 judgment, that is not defamatory of the Plaintiffs, then
19 everyone can forget about nutrition; you need not even
20 mention the words "strike out". When I come to my
21 judgment, whatever I find about environment, recycling,
22 waste, employment or whatever, I will be finding in your
23 favour in relation to nutrition, and you will know that.
24
25 MS. STEEL: OK. I think it was just because I kind of felt
26 that it would be tidier if they were out of the way.
27
28 MR. JUSTICE BELL: It does not matter, because the greater
29 (i.e., the decision on this preliminary issue) includes the
30 lesser (i.e., any question of striking out bits of
31 pleadings).
32
33 MS. STEEL: OK. I will turn what was a strike out application
34 into an argument about whether or not the meanings proposed
35 are defamatory.
36
37 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes, all right.
38
39 MS. STEEL: The case -- I do not know whether you have it to
40 hand -- I think it is number 11 in the bundle.
41
42 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes. Broomfield v. Greig.
43
44 MS. STEEL: Yes. I would say that even if the meaning of the
45 cartoon and of "McCancer" were as extreme as the Plaintiffs
46 paint them (which obviously we do not accept) and they
47 thereby got their meaning that they pleaded about meals
48 which cause cancer of the breast and bowel and heart
49 disease in their customers, even if that was the meaning,
50 the leaflet would not be defamatory, because the Broomfield
51 case says that you are entitled to say that food makes
52 people ill, provided that there is not a deliberate motive
53 of intent by adulteration of the products.
54
55 There is no statement of any intent on the part of
56 McDonald's to cause harm to their customers within the
57 leaflet. In fact, the leaflet does not actually say
58 anything about the food, really. The closest or the
59 strongest the leaflet gets is about what McDonald's do not
60 make clear in their nutrition guides, which does not imply
