Day 294 - 05 Nov 96 - Page 08


     
     1        point, for instance, on pet food in relation to that
     2        because of the whole layout.
     3
     4        But whether I am right or wrong about that, just for the
     5        moment suppose that it does relate to McDonald's.  Is there
     6        a meaning which is defamatory of McDonald's there, because
     7        to say meat is responsible for the majority of cases of
     8        food poisoning, and chicken and minced meat are
     9        particularly bad, which is the meaning which you have
    10        pleaded, and the only meaning at the moment, does not seem
    11        to me to be defamatory.  If I decide that is all it means,
    12        then we have wasted several weeks of evidence, because
    13        McDonald's have no case of libel against you if they prove
    14        that you participated in publication in relation to this
    15        part of the leaflet, because it does not say anything which
    16        would reduce their reputation in the eyes of ordinary
    17        people.
    18
    19        I have got McDonald's meaning, which is really two specific
    20        paragraphs.  If it means that, I can see how that could be
    21        argued to be defamatory.  And I have got your pleaded
    22        meaning in paragraph I on page 5 of tab 5, 'meat is
    23        responsible for the majority of cases of food poisoning,
    24        chicken and minced meat are particularly bad', which seems
    25        to me at the moment is not defamatory of anyone and
    26        therefore not of McDonald's.
    27
    28        All I am asking, just so I am confident in my mind that I
    29        have not failed to give you the opportunity to address me
    30        on it, is there some other meaning, not McDonald's meaning,
    31        not the one you have so far pleaded, which you accept that
    32        this leaflet bears in respect of food poisoning and which
    33        you would accept is defamatory of McDonald's?   The answer
    34        to that may be 'no'.
    35
    36   MS. STEEL:   The answer is 'no'.  Yes.
    37
    38   MR. JUSTICE BELL:   Right.  Let me make a note.  (Pause)
    39        Yes?
    40
    41   MS. STEEL:   Just about the point about whether or not it
    42        relates to McDonald's, the point is it does not specify
    43        McDonald's.  Obviously they are part of selling meat so it
    44        relates to them in that way, but it is not saying that they
    45        are any better or worse than anybody else; it is a general
    46        criticism of meat.
    47
    48   MR. JUSTICE BELL:   That may be another point.  It may be
    49        defamatory of other people as well, or it may be that the
    50        criticisms you make of McDonald's could be equally -- or
    51        which the leaflet which you have levied at McDonald's in
    52        the course of this part of the case, and which the leaflet
    53        levies -- could be aimed at other people as well.
    54
    55   MS. STEEL:   Yes, that is what it is about, really; it is about
    56        the meat industry as a whole.
    57
    58        The other point that you asked about, about the fact that
    59        we justified specific incidents which related to
    60        McDonald's, that is because obviously we are entitled to

Prev Next Index