Day 008 - 07 Jul 94 - Page 54


     
     1        wrecking the planet for  the sake of a fast buck.  I am
              trying to explore whether that is true or false.
     2
         MISS STEEL:  We are accused of distributing this leaflet in
     3        1989 and 1990.  You are reading out sections about this
              pamphlet that was not even produced until 1991.
     4
         MR. JUSTICE BELL:  It may or may help me as to McDonald's
     5        attitude to the issue which Mr. Rampton has raised.  I am
              very well aware of the dates.  I am well aware that on the
     6        one hand you from time to time said that the pamphlet was
              in being and, therefore, must have been written even as
     7        early as 1984, to which Mr. Rampton answers, yes, but it
              was still being published in 1989 and 1990, he says by
     8        you.  That is his answer to that point of yours.
 
     9        I am well aware that in relation to evidence he is calling
              as to what has happened since 1990, that you say the
    10        publication complained of was before that.  I have to keep
              all those three balls in the air and decide what
    11        conclusion to draw at the end of the day.
 
    12   MR. MORRIS:  We are not objecting in principle to things that
              happened since 1990 being raised, but we have spent the
    13        most part of the last six hours, it seems to us, dealing
              with mostly post 1990.
    14
         MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I cannot say it is irrelevant what weight
    15        I give to what has happened after 1990, I will have to
              decide.
    16
         MR. RAMPTON:  In addition to what I just said, there are three
    17        other balls to be kept in the air.  The first is that the
              defendants rely in justification to a very large extent,
    18        since the reamended defence, on matters that have happened
              as recently as 1993 or are alleged to have happened.  In
    19        other words, the defendants are saying what was true of
              McDonald's in 1989 is as true now, if not more so, than it
    20        was then.
 
    21        I am, therefore, entitled to use modern information to
              rebut that allegation.
    22
              The second ball is this, that there is a claim for an
    23        injunction.  The defendants have continued to repeat
              allegations of a similar kind to those made in 1989.  It
    24        must mean that I am entitled to show those allegations
              which continued to be repeated are false.
    25
              Second, as a connected consideration, there is the 
    26        counterclaim and the defence to counterclaim. 
  
    27   MISS STEEL:  Further and better particulars have not been given
              of the defence to counter claim.
    28
         MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Do not worry about that.  Look at it in this
    29        way.  If I did not look at what happened before 1989 and
              1990, you would be saying I would be doing you an
    30        injustice.  If I did not look at what happened after 1989
              and 1990, Mr. Rampton would be saying I would be doing his

Prev Next Index