Day 294 - 05 Nov 96 - Page 07
1 defamatory but which you say is justified anyway?
2
3 MR. MORRIS: I don't really understand the point.
4
5 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Most of your efforts in the case were
6 designed to show that McDonald's food was likely to lead to
7 a risk of food poisoning; a real risk of food poisoning,
8 that is what it appeared to be aimed at.
9
10 MS. STEEL: I think the thing is that the meaning we have
11 pleaded is what the meaning of that section of the leaflet
12 is. But obviously, when people read that they may think
13 that that would equally apply to McDonald's as anybody
14 else, whether or not it is defamatory -----
15
16 MR. JUSTICE BELL: So you do say that is the meaning, that is
17 -----
18
19 MR. MORRIS: Of the section 'what is your poison', yes.
20
21 MS. STEEL: Because McDonald's are not specifically mentioned.
22 Obviously, they do sell meat products. So it would be
23 equally applicable to them.
24
25 MR. MORRIS: It is not in itself defamatory, but it relates to
26 the context and the general charge about the 'at worse
27 poisonous', which is what McDonald's are jumping up and
28 down about.
29
30 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes. There is nothing at all -- well, it
31 has got cases of food poisoning, yes. Just pause a
32 moment. You have not formulated another meaning which you
33 would bat for, then, which you would say is defamatory but
34 which is justified?
35
36 MR. MORRIS: About which section? The 'What's Your Poison'
37 section?
38
39 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Well, anything in the leaflet which might
40 relate to food poisoning or damage to the health from
41 eating the food apart from the degenerative diseases which
42 we put under 'nutrition'.
43
44 MS. STEEL: I mean, I think the point is that the meaning that
45 we have pleaded was in response to what the Plaintiffs were
46 saying. We say that that section of the leaflet does not
47 specifically mention McDonald's; the section on the
48 previous page about the food being at best mediocre at
49 worse poisonous does not specifically relate to food
50 poisoning, but it relates to any of the criticisms made of
51 the food within the leaflet because it is just a worse case
52 scenario. As we know, there have been worse case scenarios
53 even within McDonald's. For example, the incident they
54 have admitted in Preston.
55
56 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I do not think I am making myself clear.
57 Forget for a moment whether it relates to McDonald's or
58 not. In fact, I find it very difficult to see how anything
59 in this leaflet could be said not to relate to McDonald's,
60 unless it is quite clear that it does not. You may have a
