Day 284 - 22 Oct 96 - Page 06
1 have to say this part of the meaning is pure statement of
2 fact and that part of the meaning is comment. You first of
3 all have to say what the meaning is. Then you can deal
4 with what you say the real facts are, both ones mentioned
5 in the leaflet and other ones which you would seek to rely
6 on, and then later on in your submissions you can go back
7 and say "We would suggest this is comment and we can rely
8 on these matters to defend it", or "We would say it is
9 statement of fact and we say we can rely on these matters
10 to justify it".
11
12 Do you see what I mean?
13
14 MR. MORRIS: One question; it is my understanding, and I might
15 be right or wrong, that other matters that would go to the
16 reputation of McDonald's in any event, which I have been
17 advised have to be seen in the round, would be relevant in
18 any case. Even if something was deemed to be a comment
19 rather than a fact, and therefore matters such as safety in
20 the workplace would not necessarily, if Mr. Rampton is
21 right, be relevant to poor conditions, if it was deemed to
22 be comment, but the safety conditions would still be
23 relevant in terms of general reputation because it would
24 not be defamatory of the plaintiffs.
25
26 MR JUSTICE BELL: We will hear what Mr. Rampton says in due
27 course. The point is this; you cannot just call evidence
28 about bad practices generally in order to say that the
29 plaintiff has a reputation they ought not to have or that
30 they have no reputation at all. What you can do, if a
31 general charge is being made, is call matters of fact which
32 might justify that general charge even though they are not
33 stated in the leaflet. But the general charge has to be in
34 the leaflet, be it, for instance, poor conditions of
35 employment. Even though health and safety is not mentioned
36 in the leaflet, you can say work practices are not safe.
37
38 What you cannot do is just call evidence to blacken the
39 character of the plaintiff, which is not a matter of fact
40 which could possibly be justification of a general charge
41 in the leaflet. If you call evidence of a matter of fact
42 which you would say justifies a general charge in the
43 leaflet but it fails to justify that general charge, then
44 it, having come in, as I understand it, I can take it into
45 account in relation to what damages should be, and so on.
46 But that is a different consideration.
47
48 MR. MORRIS: So the general charge such as poor conditions, it
49 would not matter whether it was a fact or a comment, it
50 would still be that safety would be relevant to that. It
51 is a general charge under which umbrella safety would come
52 under.
53
54 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Well, I do not really want to add to what I
55 said yesterday; otherwise I will put it in a different way
56 and it will be confusing. Can I give you an example away
57 from this case? It is based on my recollection of one of
58 the authorities, though my recollection may not be
59 accurate.
60
