Day 309 - 03 Dec 96 - Page 64


     
     1        by use of paper.  It is very difficult for the meanings to
     2        do so.
     3
     4   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  It is, if one is just talking about packaging
     5        as such, but the nub of this, you say, is really D is it
     6        not?  The mention of fast-food packaging material, if it
     7        has a relevance, is really to say you cannot go around
     8        destroying the rainforests, if that is what it is applying
     9        to, as opposed to general forest, just to start packaging
    10        fast-food as a result.
    11
    12   MR. RAMPTON:  That is absolutely right.
    13
    14   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Therefore it is wanton if you bring down the
    15        rainforest for that purpose, if that is what it means.
    16
    17   MR. RAMPTON:  Of course, I have always said, and I hope I am
    18        right, that the principal sting of that is related to
    19        destruction of the rainforest.  It a big sting because it
    20        is 800 square miles of rainforest annually, just for the
    21        paper packaging, never mind the cattle ranching.  But it
    22        does carry with it, which may not be defamatory at all,
    23        some sort of implication about the number of trees that
    24        McDonald's use, whether rainforest trees or other trees
    25        were used annually for their packaging.  That is why we
    26        addressed it in the evidence.  I dare say we did not really
    27        need to, but we did.
    28
    29   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  If I focus for the moment on meaning D.
    30
    31   MR. RAMPTON:  Yes.
    32
    33   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Can I take account of any deception about
    34        recycling or non-recycling polystyrene foam in this context
    35        when the leaflet refers to recycled paper?
    36
    37   MR. RAMPTON:  All I can say, yes.  I mean, I think your Lordship
    38        can do that.  If there were widespread deception about
    39        recycling of polystyrene foam, and your Lordship were a
    40        jury and I were the Defendants' counsel, I would be saying
    41        you cannot give them much for this allegation about
    42        recycled paper, it may not be true of the paper but it
    43        certainly is true of the polystyrene foam, whereas if
    44        I were the Plaintiffs' counsel in that case I would be
    45        saying to the jury, "That is absolutely pathetic, they put
    46        paper into their leaflet and all they can go on about is
    47        polystyrene foam".  That is not a very satisfactory answer,
    48        but it is about as far as I believe that it can be pushed.
    49        It has some weight, yes, it does, but one or two statements
    50        about the recyclability of polystyrene foam could not 
    51        justify an allegation that McDonald's have, and it must 
    52        mean persistently, persistently tried to fool people about 
    53        the recycled content of their paper.
    54
    55   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Thank you.  The next matter is the relevance
    56        or otherwise of CFCs and HCFCs, and I understand what you
    57        say so far as the claim is concerned.  I have got questions
    58        to ask in relation to damage to the ozone layer, and the
    59        counterclaim.  Query whether it is convenient to ask them
    60        at this stage or when I have the counterclaim submissions.

Prev Next Index