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

Prev Next Index