Day 312 - 11 Dec 96 - Page 44
1
2 MR. MORRIS: That is fine then. I have a newspaper report of it
3 from the Financial Times, March 14th 1995.
4
5 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Do you have his thick bundle?
6
7 MR. MORRIS: We actually brought them today, yes.
8
9 MR. JUSTICE BELL: It is in volume 1, it is the first one in
10 divider 3, volume 1.
11
12 MR. MORRIS: Right. I am not sure if it has the full... I have
13 not looked at that, I do not know if it has the full
14 implications of this case, because what happened... If
15 I can just hand up this (handed). If I give one to the
16 Plaintiffs. Apparently, and this relates also to our
17 witness statement from Reed Milsaps about US law, that
18 rather than going to the details of the UK court decision
19 on the Telnikov case that Matusevitch tried to have the
20 judgment enforced in the USA.
21
22 MR. RAMPTON: No, my Lord, it was not, it was Telnikov. I have
23 to be in the case. What actually happened was that
24 Matusevitch, an emigrant, who was the Defendant, emigrated
25 to Washington after the end of the case. Telnikov, the
26 Defendant, tried to have his damages and costs executed in
27 Washington as a registered judgment. The Washington court
28 said, no, because under US law Telnikov would have had to
29 have proved falsity and malice in order to succeed, and
30 that was not part of English law. Therefore, by its own
31 constitutional rules the Washington court would not enforce
32 the judgment.
33
34 MR. MORRIS: Right. Thank you. I was getting a bit confused.
35 I was getting confused with who is the Plaintiff and who is
36 the Defendant.
37
38 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes. What is the point you want to make on
39 Telnikov?
40
41 MR. MORRIS: The point I want to make that the UK libel -- two
42 things. First of all, that, as we know, the laws are
43 different in the USA. They have been cited positively in
44 the NUM judgment; we have cited them positively in this
45 case. The McDonald's Corporation itself, we argue, cannot
46 sue, could not sue, us and could not sue people for
47 distribution of the London Greenpeace fact sheet in the
48 States, and we say what is their motive for being the First
49 Plaintiff, is it an improper motive bearing in mind what
50 reputation they have here distinct from the McDonald's
51 restaurants UK?
52
53 Also, bearing in mind that if they did get a judgment here
54 it would not be enforceable in the USA, which is where they
55 are constituted. Therefore, we invite the court to infer,
56 we would say the only possible inference is, that they do
57 have an improper motive for seeking to use a court platform
58 which they believe is favourable to them which they could
59 not do elsewhere, and they could not enforce elsewhere or
60 elsewhere of relevance, which is in the USA. I think that
