Day 057 - 29 Nov 94 - Page 15


     
     1        that if "link" needs to be clarified, then why does not
     2        "cause"?  Mr. Rampton said -----
     3
     4   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  At the moment -- I say this in Mr. Rampton's
     5        presence -- I am not minded to put you to any further
     6        definition of the words "link", "association" or "relation
     7        to".  You have said in argument that they are taken to
     8        consider all the possible scenarios which have arisen in
     9        this case.  For myself, I have to say, Mr. Rampton, I am
    10        content with that.
    11
    12   MR. RAMPTON:  That is entirely a matter for your Lordship.
    13        I think I know what the Defendants' case is.  I am not
    14        interested in the part of their case, for obvious reasons,
    15        which merely asserts a link or asserts a mere link, because
    16        I do not believe that to be anything which is defamatory to
    17        McDonald's.  So far as it extends further than that,
    18        I understand what it is and if your Lordship understands it
    19        too, then I need not press that any further.
    20
    21        What the Defendants are doing at the moment is to confuse
    22        my submission on that question with the question of a
    23        pleaded meaning for words complained of.
    24
    25   MS. STEEL:  I do not understand what Mr. Rampton is saying
    26        because -----
    27
    28   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  You must let him finish.  We cannot have
    29        people standing up in other people's submissions and
    30        interrupting them to say:  "I do not understand what he is
    31        saying".  You must follow the normal practice so far as
    32        that is concerned.
    33
    34   MR. RAMPTON:  My Lord, if there is anything that Ms. Steel would
    35        like me to clarify, I will willingly do it.  I hope that
    36        what I have said is tolerably clear.  The reason why there
    37        is no refinement of the word "cause" in the proposed
    38        amendment is that the ordinary reader does not add those
    39        sorts of refinements when he reads a document of this
    40        kind.  He says to himself, in answer to the question:
    41         "What's so unhealthy about McDonald's food?" The
    42        rhetorical question asked in the pamphlet.  When he has
    43        looked at the pamphlet, he says to himself:  "Oh, I know
    44        what they are telling me; they are saying it is unhealthy,
    45        that is, the food because it gives you cancer and heart
    46        disease; it causes cancer and heart disease in those who
    47        eat it".
    48
    49        As your Lordship has already observed in the earlier part
    50        of the argument, there is no difference between the word 
    51        "food" and the word "meals" simply because McDonald's food 
    52        is generally available to the public only in the form of 
    53        meals; "meals" to comprehend "snacks", if it pleases the
    54        Defendants to know that.
    55
    56        My Lord, may I pass briefly on to 4L?
    57
    58   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Could I just ask you one matter about F?  If
    59        your original pleading was read as if the word ---
    60

Prev Next Index