Day 083 - 06 Feb 95 - Page 05
1 as a result of eating beef products. In this country we
2 heard from Mr. Walker that McDonald's uses beef from 8.1
3 per cent of the total beef slaughterings in the UK. So,
4 clearly, it is something that is relevant to McDonald's.
5
6 If it were stated that there is a risk of transmission of
7 BSE to humans eating beef, and that due to the fact that
8 McDonald's take no steps to ensure that their beef is
9 BSE-free their customers are equally at risk, then that
10 could be defamatory of the Plaintiffs.
11
12 MR. JUSTICE BELL: You would like to add that to your draft
13 amendment, would you, by adding "and/or have taken no steps
14 which they ought to have done to ensure their beef is
15 BSE-free"?
16
17 MS. STEEL: Just that they have not taken any steps. As I say,
18 I had not discussed the draft amendment in detail,
19 so .....
20
21 MR. JUSTICE BELL: No, I think I have to get on and decide this
22 issue; we cannot keep putting it off.
23
24 MS. STEEL: No, I understand that; "that they have not taken any
25 steps", I am happy for that to be added, "to prevent
26 this". Perhaps it would be better to put "have not taken
27 necessary steps".
28
29 MR. JUSTICE BELL: What I have put: "They sell various products
30 made from beef which may be contaminated with BSE and which
31 may, therefore, risk serious damage to human health and/or
32 that they have taken no steps which they ought to have done
33 to ensure that their beef products are BSE-free", which is
34 what you said at the beginning and what I understand you to
35 be adding now.
36
37 MS. STEEL: We would prefer it to read: "They have not taken
38 the necessary steps which they could have done to prevent
39 this". I think that is it.
40
41 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes. Do you want to add anything to that,
42 Mr. Morris?
43
44 MS. STEEL: I just want to add something which is that last
45 week Mr. Rampton quoted a case about -- I cannot remember
46 which one it was, to be honest -- it said: "If a man by
47 misfortune should sell a bottle of wine or a hamburger
48 which is not as good as it might be and the customer
49 suffers in consequence, but no fault or blame can be
50 attributed to the businessman on that account, then a
51 statement to the effect that the goods were or might have
52 been unsatisfactory in some way is not the justification of
53 the defamatory libel".
54
55 I would argue that if that is the case, then it must
56 equally be the case that if somebody makes a general
57 comment about the risks of hamburgers, then that cannot be
58 defamatory. That is what is in the Fact Sheet. It is a
59 general comment about meat products, not specifically about
60 McDonald's products. I would argue that either the
