Day 177 - 26 Oct 95 - Page 30
1 claim; he is giving his own view about what the leaflet
2 alleges. He says:
3
4 "The leaflet makes allegations against the
5 Plaintiffs which are clearly extremely serious
6 and defamatory. They include charges which may
7 well have the meanings, firstly" -- and then it
8 is about the rainforest -- "secondly, that the
9 food sold by McDonald's is junk food and is
10 injurious to the health of those who eat it and
11 at least may cause cancer, high blood pressure
12 and other symptoms of ill health in those who
13 eat it, that is to say the food."
14
15 My Lord, I do not see between that -- no doubt off-the-cuff
16 and perhaps, therefore, all the better for it -- that
17 off-the-cuff rendering of the leaflet's effect on
18 Drake J.'s mind, I do not see a lot of water between that
19 and what we have pleaded at paragraph F of the Amended
20 Statement of Claim.
21
22 MR. MORRIS: Can I say something as a matter of fact? I was
23 present at that hearing, and we talked about this after the
24 time. First of all, it would be grossly irresponsible of
25 Drake J. to make a ruling -----
26
27 MR. JUSTICE BELL: No. That is not Mr. Rampton's point at all.
28 He is not saying that Drake J. made a ruling. He is saying
29 that is an indication of what someone just reading it
30 through might well make of it.
31
32 MR. MORRIS: No. Our understanding was that tht is not the
33 impression he was given. He was given and impression what
34 the claims made by the Plaintiffs were; and it would have
35 been grossly irresponsible of him to say that is what the
36 leaflet does mean, whether it is a ruling or whether it is
37 an indication. I do not think he would have made such an
38 irresponsible statement. What we discussed at the time,
39 and we did not challenge it at the time because we thought
40 it was -- well, in those days we did not know what the
41 procedures were -- but we certainly would have challenged
42 it if he was trying to say that is his impression of what
43 the leaflet meant; and we do not think that is what
44 happened at that hearing. We were quite shocked at the way
45 that was put at the time. But there you go. As far as we
46 understood, that is what he was basing on what the
47 Plaintiffs had claimed.
48
49 MR. RAMPTON: Mr. Morris is wrong about that. In fact -----
50
51 MR. MORRIS: How do you know? You were not there.
52
53 MR. RAMPTON: Because I have read the judgment. Later on in the
54 judgment -- I think it is page 12 -- Drake J. does actually
55 set out what he understands the Plaintiffs to be saying
56 that the leaflet means. Here, he is setting out the
57 impression that it has made on him. As I said, that does
58 not bind your Lordship. Your Lordship may not even find it
59 persuasive.
60
