Day 294 - 05 Nov 96 - Page 09


     
     1        try and justify the Plaintiffs' meaning.
     2
     3   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes, I have no problem with that.  Since you
     4        did very firmly take that view, I was just exploring
     5        whether there is a meaning which you accept is defamatory
     6        of McDonald's there which you have not yet formulated and
     7        I was giving you the opportunity to formulate it now.
     8        Yes?
     9
    10   MR. MORRIS:   Yes, I think there is quite a lot in the leaflet
    11        that is not defamatory, especially as a lot of it is a
    12        general case, not just that McDonald's is the same as other
    13        similar companies, but McDonald's is part of a system that
    14        is doing X, Y, Z, which does not necessarily mean that each
    15        one in that system is doing things that are specifically
    16        defamatory and collectively builds up to a big picture.  It
    17        also means that they are part of a system and it is the
    18        system that is doing what is said in the leaflet.  So it is
    19        one step higher than McDonald's is as bad as everyone else;
    20        it is also the step up saying McDonald's is responsible as
    21        part of a process that is causing serious problems, whether
    22        it is health problems or environmental problems, whatever.
    23
    24   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I see that.  If you say a system is
    25        consciously harming other people, and then go on to say Joe
    26        Bloggs is part of that system, it seems to me that is
    27        defamatory of Joe Bloggs, anyway.  You follow your own
    28        line.
    29
    30        I was anxious that I should ask you, and I will in respect
    31        of the other heads which have to come, save nutrition where
    32        I have decided what the meaning is, whether there is any
    33        meaning which you wish to formulate apart from the one
    34        which you have pleaded, and which, by the way, you say
    35        is....
    36
    37   MR. MORRIS:   I was going to come on in more detail to meaning
    38        later on.
    39
    40   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Carry on now.
    41
    42   MR. MORRIS:   I am not prepared fully.
    43
    44   MS. STEEL:   Can I just say about the consciously harming bit?
    45        The point you make might be slightly different where it is
    46        a conscious act but is not one that sets out to harm,
    47        whereas ----
    48
    49   MR. JUSTICE BELL:   No, I was only using those words for the
    50        purpose of my illustrating about a system.  It does not
    51        have to be conscious harm, an allegation of consciously
    52        harming, necessarily.  That was just for the sake of an
    53        illustration that I do not think you are arguing.  It would
    54        not be any defence to say there is this pernicious system
    55        in practice.  It would not be any defence to an allegation
    56        of libel by a particular company that it was not
    57        specifically mentioned there if the whole context of what
    58        was written indicated that it was said that company was
    59        part of the system.
    60

Prev Next Index