Day 053 - 22 Nov 94 - Page 16


     
     1   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  That is where I would like you to tell me why
     2        that is, because at the moment I am not minded to agree
     3        with that, that there is that distinction.
     4
     5   MR. MORRIS:  I think that, really, the onus should be on
     6        Mr. Rampton, because he says -- which we do not agree with,
     7        but this is trying to clarify the issues, and we say it is,
     8        in fact, confusing the issues, shutting the stable door
     9        after the horse has bolted, so to speak.  It is clear to us
    10        that McDonald's has changed the form of wording, because it
    11        is different from the original.  We would say that if it
    12        means -- rather than as it says in the leaflet, these diets
    13        that are "high in fat, sugar, animal products and salt
    14        (sodium), and low in fibre, vitamins and minerals" -- is
    15        the issue to meaning that we have to show that somebody
    16        consuming meals at McDonald's has died of cancer or heart
    17        disease because of the amount of McDonald's foods they have
    18        eaten in their lives, then to us, it is a dramatic
    19        extension and change. (sic)  That is why they have done it,
    20        basically.  If they had put that originally down in the
    21        original 16 points, then I am pretty sure we would have
    22        been advised to have changed that as a meaning that is not
    23        capable of being -----
    24
    25   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  You are doing that now, anyway; you are doing
    26        that, and your resistance to this application is saying, in
    27        any event, whatever the other rights and wrongs may be, you
    28        it is not a meaning which the leaflet is capable of
    29        bearing.  There is no point in pleading meanings which
    30        the leaflet is not capable of bearing.  I understand you
    31        are making that point
    32
    33   MS. STEEL:  Certainly not at this late stage of proceedings, as
    34        well.
    35
    36   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  That is why I said whatever the other rights
    37        and wrongs of the matter.
    38
    39   MR. MORRIS:  Can I just say one last point on context, before I
    40        sit down:  just that the context that Mr. Rampton, we would
    41        say, relied upon to try to justify this change of meaning
    42        at this late stage, he referred to authorities in that the
    43        content is allowed to be relied upon to some extent.  But
    44        the authorities equally referred to the content being
    45        relied upon conversely, that if other aspects of the
    46        content, in fact, show how McDonald's back up our statement
    47        that it is talking about diet, rather than specifically the
    48        amount of ingestion of McDonald's food making a difference,
    49        it is clear to us that the whole context of the leaflet is
    50        generic, in terms of looking at the fast-food industry. 
    51        Therefore, that backs up what is clearly obvious to us in 
    52        any case in the actual text of that section. 
    53
    54        So the context of the leaflet, in fact, is evidence and
    55        back up for our position, that what it actually says in
    56        that section is, in fact, what it means, rather than what
    57        Mr. Rampton says, that the context alters what it obviously
    58        means in that section.
    59
    60        So, in fact, he is relying on the context.  We are not

Prev Next Index