Day 307 - 27 Nov 96 - Page 17


     
     1        wrong with McDonald's' (referred to in paragraph 3 of the
     2        Statement of Claim) contained numerous allegations which
     3        were false and defamatory and have, despite these letters,
     4        continued to publish or cause to be published or been party
     5        to or procured the publication of the said leaflet and
     6        other material containing allegations of the same or
     7        similar effect and have thereby spread or caused or been
     8        party to or procured the spreading of lies."
     9
    10        The first point on their meaning is that the press releases
    11        and the leaflets do not refer to representatives of London
    12        Greenpeace; it refers to members.  I do not know whether
    13        that particularly matters or whether that will make any
    14        difference, in effect, but just to note that the word is
    15        not used in the press releases.
    16
    17        The second point is that they have just said that we
    18        ignored letters sent by McDonald's solicitors in 1984 and
    19        1990.  Now, there is absolutely no mention in McDonald's
    20        pleaded meaning about the several subsequent letters which
    21        are referred to in both of the press releases and in the
    22        leaflet that McDonald's issues, and if I just say, in
    23        addition to that point, the letter sent in 1990 is not, in
    24        fact, mentioned in the leaflet "Why McDonald's is going to
    25        court".  That leaflet just says:  "The leaflet has been
    26        distributed worldwide since 1984.  Its contents have been
    27        repeated in the media stalls and even in a church
    28        magazine."  Then:  "During that period the group has
    29        ignored several requests from McDonald's to stop publishing
    30        the leaflet."
    31
    32        So, it is clear from the leaflet that anybody reading that
    33        would assume we had ignored several requests which have
    34        been sent since 1984, not two single requests, one in 1984
    35        and one in 1990.  That is true of the "Libel Action
    36        Background Briefing" as well, because that refers to 1984
    37        and 1990 and refers to several subsequent letters in the
    38        intervening period.
    39
    40        If you just note that the paragraph about "in September
    41        1990 McDonald's writing to the five core members of the
    42        group", is a separate paragraph to the one about 1984,
    43        which refers to the "despite several subsequent letters".
    44
    45        The other part, then, about the Plaintiffs' pleaded meaning
    46        (c) is again the "causing or procuring the publication of
    47        the said leaflet", and I have already made the point
    48        before, "and other material containing allegations to the
    49        same or similar effect."  Again, the point is that the
    50        whole reference throughout these documents is to the fact 
    51        sheet which we are being sued over, and it is not about 
    52        McDonald's trying to stop us distributing other leaflets. 
    53        The press release is quite specifically referring to the
    54        leaflet that is the subject of the action.  The same,
    55        really...  Sorry, a similar point about the "causing or
    56        being party to or procuring the spreading of lies" is the
    57        same point I made earlier.
    58
    59        Then on meaning (d):  "The Defendants and each of them are
    60        deliberately deceiving the public when they know full well

Prev Next Index