Day 186 - 10 Nov 95 - Page 34
1 surveys, in any event, where I think they said something
2 about "they did not come to McDonald's to get healthy
3 food". I think that was one of the Fairgrieve surveys. Of
4 course, it was referred to in the nutrition memo in 1986,
5 where they said that people do not come to McDonald's for
6 nutritious food.
7
8 The only other large section of notes related to the baker
9 case and striking out -- although I do not particularly --
10 I am not 100 percent clear about the situation with this.
11 If I can just say briefly, the argument I wanted to put on
12 the last occasion was not the same as the argument that
13 Mr. Morris was trying to put a couple of months ago, or
14 when we first came back to court. It related to the
15 Plaintiffs' own meaning. I think it is an accepted legal
16 principle that you cannot find a meaning higher than that
17 pleaded by the Plaintiffs; therefore, if the Plaintiffs'
18 meaning is not defamatory because of the interpretation of
19 the Scottish baker case, there would be no case for us to
20 answer; and, therefore, that was why I was arguing that
21 their case should be struck out, and that would leave us
22 not having to argue about what the meaning was of this
23 section of the leaflet. I do not know whether you want me
24 to make the point on that?
25
26 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I do not think so, because the preliminary
27 issue, as I have defined it, which I am now trying, and
28 stealing, as it were, from the first page of the Master of
29 the Rolls' judgment in Skuse, because I have not brought
30 with me my note where I actually wrote it down -- whether
31 the words complained of are defamatory to the Plaintiffs
32 and, if so, whether they bear the defamatory meaning
33 complained of by the Plaintiffs or some lesser defamatory
34 meaning and, if so, what -- includes the question of
35 whether the meaning, whatever I decide it to be, is
36 defamatory; and the pleadings are just a route to the
37 conclusion, whatever it is; and as soon as I have, for
38 instance, decided the meaning and whether it is defamatory
39 on this preliminary issue, then you can forget any pleading
40 about meaning. That has served its purpose. So there is
41 no need to strike out. I just hear this preliminary issue,
42 make my ruling on it, and then you can forget any pleadings
43 about meaning.
44
45 MS. STEEL: I am getting a little bit confused now. Are you
46 saying, supposing you found that there was not a defamatory
47 meaning -----
48
49 MR. JUSTICE BELL: If I find that the meaning is X, but X is not
50 defamatory, then that is the end of the Plaintiffs' case in
51 so far as nutrition is concerned.
52
53 MS. STEEL: Yes.
54
55 MR. JUSTICE BELL: If X is the meaning pleaded by the
56 Plaintiffs, but I find it is not defamatory and that is
57 still the case, if I find it is something different to that
58 pleaded by the Plaintiffs but some lesser meaning --
59 because it cannot be a higher one, a stronger one -- and
60 that is not defamatory, that is the end of it. If I find
