Day 052 - 21 Nov 94 - Page 22


     
     1        a chain of restaurants, than to say that people who eat
     2        there expose themselves to a risk of cancer and heart
     3        disease and a danger of food-poisoning".  My Lord, it would
     4        appear from that passage that Mr. Justice Drake, having
     5        indicated what in his view might turn out to be the actual
     6        meanings, is interpreting what is already pleaded as
     7        meaning roughly the same thing, that is to say, that the
     8        food they eat may cause them cancer and heart disease.
     9
    10        My Lord, then there is your Lordship on 3rd November --
    11        that is tab 2 -- this is page 2 of your Lordship's ruling.
    12        Again it escapes me what the ruling was actually about, but
    13        that does not any longer matter.  Having drawn attention to
    14        the leaflet and then at letter B having read out the "Mc"
    15        headings which I read out earlier this morning, your
    16        Lordship says this at letter C:
    17
    18        "The Plaintiffs claim that the text of the leaflet amounts
    19        to a series of defamatory allegations, as pleaded in
    20        paragraphs 4A to P of the Statement of Claim at pages 17 to
    21        19 of the pleadings bundle.
    22
    23        Those paragraphs can be summarised as alleging the meanings
    24        that", then if your Lordship goes down to just below letter
    25        F:  "Thirdly, that the Plaintiffs misled the public as to
    26        the nutritional value of the food which they sell and which
    27        in fact causes cancer and heart disease and to which people
    28        become addicted and which is poisonous".
    29
    30        My Lord, that could not be a clearer an indication, in fact
    31         -- no doubt, your Lordship may have taken into account the
    32        actual wording of the pamphlet and context -- to the
    33        Defendants what it was that the Plaintiffs were complaining
    34        about in relation to this part of the pamphlet, which in
    35        fact causes cancer and heart disease.  Because what your
    36        Lordship has done is to reinterpret what is pleaded in
    37        paragraph 4F of the Statement of Claim as it then stood.
    38
    39        My Lord, there is a short passage from my submissions on
    40        21st December, page 23 of the relevant transcript, at
    41        letter B.  This is the argument about whether there should
    42        be a jury or not in this case.  What I said at letter B was
    43        this:  "Of all the issues in the case, perhaps the most
    44        important one in this sense" that is to say, in relation to
    45        jury or no jury, I think, "is the allegation that the
    46        Plaintiffs' food causes illness, disease and death,
    47        particularly perhaps by the route of cancer.  Now that is a
    48        very serious allegation."  That was on 21st December 1993.
    49
    50        Your Lordship giving judgment on that question -- tab 4 -- 
    51        again gave expression to what your Lordship understood the 
    52        Plaintiffs' complaint about this part of the leaflet to 
    53        be.  Page 33 of the transcript starting at letter C, your
    54        Lordship says:  "I will not repeat the background to the
    55        claim in any detail.  It arises out of the alleged
    56        distribution or part in the distribution played by the
    57        Defendants of a leaflet which is said to be defamatory of
    58        the Plaintiffs in the following respects".  Then your
    59        Lordship deals with rainforests and recycling and waste.
    60

Prev Next Index