Day 052 - 21 Nov 94 - Page 53
1 in the words that he published, and not the time of day or
2 the dates of publication, but what it is that is defamatory
3 of the plaintiff in the publication that he says is true.
4
5 The reason why, in our respectful submission, that is an
6 obligation -- well, there are two reasons. The first is as
7 a matter of universal law in civil cases, it is the
8 obligation of each side to inform the other side what is
9 the case they have to meet; secondly, as important or more
10 important, the court has to know what is the issue between
11 the parties. If, for example, in the present case the
12 Plaintiffs' case is, "the pamphlet accuses us of selling
13 food which causes cancer and heart disease", and that is
14 not true, your Lordship needs to know whether the
15 Defendants say, "Oh, you are wrong, it is true", or whether
16 they say, "You are wrong, it does not mean that and what it
17 does mean is true".
18
19 If we are right at the end of the case and it means that
20 the Plaintiffs' food causes cancer and heart disease, and
21 the Defendants do not try to meet that case, then, as
22 I think I said earlier, the defence must fail. The
23 evidence which they have adduced on that part of the case
24 could only go to damages. If it could go to that, there is
25 some authority it may not be permissible even to put it in
26 that area, as it happens that is a theoretical problem in
27 this case.
28
29 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Well, it is a theoretical problem or it may
30 be, because I may decide that however the Defendants view
31 it they have called evidence to the effect that diet, etc.,
32 causes, and to the effect that a significant number of
33 people eat sufficient McDonald's food for that to affect
34 their diet.
35
36 MR. RAMPTON: Yes. But that in a sense would meet the case
37 advanced by the Plaintiffs.
38
39 MR. JUSTICE BELL: By you.
40
41 MR. RAMPTON: To an extent. Obviously to an extent only because
42 it would be confined to that section of the population,
43 however great or however small, that kind of diet at
44 McDonald's. It does not matter where else they might fill
45 in with the diet. Whether that was an answer to the
46 case -----
47
48 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Which you now want to plead?
49
50 MR. RAMPTON: Yes, and as we would say consistent with
51 generalisation about McDonald's food in the pamphlet, is
52 another question. But those are questions for the
53 future. Equally, it might be that the effect of the
54 evidence adduced by the Defendants failed to reach even
55 that standard, and that they succeeded in establishing only
56 that there was a recognised association requiring or
57 suggesting the need for further investigation between diet
58 and degenerative disease.
59
60 MR. JUSTICE BELL: A middle meaning might be, just as an
