Day 057 - 29 Nov 94 - Page 11
1 Mr. Justice Drake is saying on page 2 and, on the other
2 hand, what he is saying on page 11 which is the second page
3 and what your Lordship -----
4
5 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Page 11, yes.
6
7 MR. RAMPTON: What Mr. Justice Drake said on page 11 at B to C,
8 what your Lordship said on 3rd November and again on
9 21st December, those three last instances, I take to be --
10 of course I am not clairvoyant -- interpretations of the
11 pleaded meaning.
12
13 On page 2 of what Mr. Justice Drake was saying, this I take
14 to be, as it were, a warning to the Defendants what it may
15 be the court will find, or something like what the court
16 will find, is the true meaning of the words complained of.
17 He says the leaflet makes allegations etc., "the
18 allegations include charges which may well have the
19 meanings", then he says,"that the foods sold by McDonald's
20 is injurious to the health of those who eat it and at least
21 may cause cancer, high blood pressure and other symptoms of
22 ill health in those who eat it".
23
24 That, my Lord, in our submission, is a different sort of an
25 observation. He is actually saying there what it may well
26 turn out to be the true meaning of the leaflet; whereas the
27 others, I quite agree with your Lordship, are judicial
28 interpretations of the pleading as it then stood. In other
29 words, of the word "linked" or "links" as used in the
30 Statement of Claim.
31
32 My Lord, one never likes to try to second guess what a
33 judge may be thinking. But, my Lord, I finish summarising
34 my submissions on the pleaded meaning in this way: It is
35 understandable, although after all this time perhaps not
36 readily forgivable, that Ms. Steel and Mr. Morris confuse
37 evidence with the meaning of the words complained of.
38
39 What we have set out is what we believe the ordinary reader
40 of this leaflet, not "might" but actually "would" have
41 taken it to be meaning, conveying in this area of the
42 case. That means that it is plain English. It does not
43 admit of clarification or qualification in the way that is
44 required of a Defendant who has to state what it is that he
45 is justifying.
46
47 It is perfectly open to Defendants to say and to these
48 Defendants: "Well, we do not think it means that. We are
49 quite satisfied that it does not mean that McDonald's meals
50 cause these illnesses. No sensible person would reach that
51 conclusion. We, therefore, disavow any attempt to justify
52 any such meaning". What we do say is X, Y and Z in those
53 meanings, X, Y or Z, the words are true, and that is what
54 we set out to prove".
55
56 One notices, having read, as I have re-read, the whole of
57 the evidence of Dr. Barnard, that whereas his statements,
58 his two written statements, foreshadow a possible attempt
59 to prove the truth of the meaning which is now set out with
60 clarity in the proposed amendment, namely, McDonald's food
