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

Prev Next Index