Day 309 - 03 Dec 96 - Page 68
1 action on the Defendants dragging CFCs into this case by
2 the scruff of its neck in order to try and create further
3 damage to McDonald's, if I said that, then your Lordship
4 would have to ask yourself the question: Did they honestly
5 believe it? Was there introduction to that issue into this
6 case born of malice, or was it because they genuinely
7 thought it made a contribution to proving the truth about
8 McDonald's?
9
10 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes, I think I did not express myself very
11 clearly. It really amounts to this: If I am allowed to
12 take heed of the fact -- if I decide that the Background
13 Briefing said that it was a lie to say that McDonald's were
14 responsible for damage to the ozone layer -- I appreciate
15 you say I cannot take that into account because of the
16 history which I have developed -- but if I decide that the
17 Defendants can rely on that in support of their
18 counterclaim, I still do not have to look into damage to
19 the ozone layer and CFCs or HCFCs because if I say, "Well,
20 they believed it was true, so it was an unjustified
21 defamation of them to say they lied about that".
22
23 MR. RAMPTON: No, because if the evidence is that such a belief,
24 though stated, was not credible on the evidence -----
25
26 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I appreciate that. Then I would go on.
27
28 MR. RAMPTON: You would have to.
29
30 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Suppose I said in relation to this they
31 honestly believed on -- I would have to look into it
32 because I would have to go on to say, "On grounds which
33 were there for them to accept, if they chose to; even
34 though you and Mr. Atkinson might not have thought it was
35 convincing enough, there was enough there to convince
36 them", so I would have to look into it.
37
38 MR. RAMPTON: Yes.
39
40 MR. MORRIS: Can I say it relates to the Plaintiffs' defence in
41 the counterclaim that we should have known the -- that the
42 service of witness statements, which included CFCs, served
43 to convince us that our whole case was based on lies, it
44 goes to -- obviously, we believe it is relevant to
45 ecological catastrophe which is -----
46
47 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I know that. I am not talking about that.
48 If I was against you on that -----
49
50 MR. MORRIS: If it is a general charge, ecological catastrophe,
51 we are entitled to argue that -----
52
53 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I do not want to argue that again. You
54 argued that to me before.
55
56 MR. MORRIS: OK. Thirdly, that if by some quirk it was not
57 pleaded, I do not know why because I was not involved with
58 checking those pleadings but -- which Mr. Rampton laughs
59 at, but that is a fact of life being a litigant in person
60 not knowing the law -- if that is the only way for some
