Day 186 - 10 Nov 95 - Page 42
1 which was 177, when he made a submission on page 19,
2 line 9: "Of course, in this case we are not in the least
3 concerned with any kind of innuendo meaning. If the words
4 in this pamphlet are defamatory of McDonald's, then they
5 are defamatory in their natural and ordinary meaning; as we
6 would contend, very often in their literal meaning".
7
8 MR. RAMPTON: It is very tedious, but Mr. Morris is ------
9
10 MR. MORRIS: " ... an implication drawn from the context of the
11 leaflet as a whole" and, therefore, it is nothing to do
12 with innuendo.
13
14 MR. RAMPTON: My Lord, Mr. Morris makes a submission borne
15 entirely of ignorance. I just mention ------
16
17 MR. JUSTICE BELL: You need not follow it up because ------
18
19 MR. RAMPTON: No, I just mention it for his benefit so that we
20 do not have this ever again in the course of this case. He
21 should acquire and read a copy of Gatley so that he knows
22 what is said in paragraph 95 on page 49 through to 51.
23
24 MR. JUSTICE BELL: He does not have to obtain a copy of Gatley
25 because he very kindly photocopied those pages for us.
26
27 MR. RAMPTON: So much the better for me; it is a pity he did not
28 read it.
29
30 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Anyway, carry on. I understand the point you
31 are making in relation to that and -----
32
33 MR. MORRIS: If we are going to lose a case on the grounds
34 that -----
35
36 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I am aware of the distinction, that it is not
37 sufficient to say that a company's products are bad; one
38 has to be able to read into the words which are complained
39 of a meaning, you would say, of fraud or something
40 tantamount to fraud, Mr. Rampton would say that or
41 carelessness. He would go down as far as that and you
42 say: "No, that is not in that".
43
44 MR. MORRIS: So, I mean, in effect, then what would happen, what
45 we would submit is that if you were to rule that the words
46 are defamatory because their nutrition guide has been
47 criticised, then it would just be a matter, really, of
48 seeing whether the criticisms of the nutrition guide are
49 accurate or not, and if that is established the rest of it
50 is fair comment based upon facts. So, really, what we are
51 looking at is the nutrition guide, if you were to rule that
52 the meaning was defamatory for that reason. That is what
53 we would submit.
54
55 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes.
56
57 MS. STEEL: If I just say again that even if Mr. Rampton's
58 argument was accepted, that carelessness was enough,
59 I still argue that on this case the pleadings that the
60 Plaintiffs have pleaded would not be defamatory because the
