Day 001 - 28 Jun 94 - Page 27


     
     1        defendants can expect a vindication of their position in a
              reasoned judgment.  It is this consideration, coupled with
     2        the hope that they may also obtain an injunction, which
              has led the plaintiffs to conclude that this action must
     3        be pressed to its end.
 
     4        My Lord, the financial disadvantages to the plaintiffs of
              this decision are perfectly obvious.  The defendants, who
     5        (and I say this advisedly because there is material to
              support it) in an apparent attempt to manipulate public
     6        opinion have repeatedly described themselves as "Unwaged
              environmentalists", are of course without the resources to
     7        pay either damages or costs if the plaintiffs should win
              this action.
     8
              Indeed, it is for the same reason, rightly, I should
     9        mention openly in court, that even thus far the plaintiffs
              have expended considerable sums of money in providing the
    10        defendants with copies of documents and with the
              technology which they wanted in order to try to maintain
    11        their defence.
 
    12        My Lord, this is a small sacrifice for the plaintiffs
              because they really do not have any choice in the matter
    13        at all.  When these defendants decided that they would
              contest the case, howsoever feeble their grounds for doing
    14        so, the plaintiffs were driven to take the action to its
              conclusion because, my Lord, the inescapable alternative
    15        was that the world at large would say to itself this:
               "McDonald's have retired in the face of the defence that
    16        these allegations are true, therefore, it must be that the
              allegations are true, and that we can now accept them as
    17        received wisdom about McDonald's and repeat them ad
              infinitum without fear of penalty".
    18
              My Lord, the other side of the coin is this:  If the
    19        plaintiffs are right in this case and the allegations made
              against them by these defendants are as completely
    20        baseless as the plaintiffs contend, then, my Lord, a
              reasoned judgment asserting the validity of that
    21        proposition and the reasons why it was valid, coupled with
              an injunction  restraining the repetition of the
    22        allegations, can only do the plaintiffs an immense and
              lasting service, however much it may cost in money to
    23        obtain it.
 
    24        My Lord, at one stage in this case your Lordship observed
              in Chambers (but I hope that does not matter) that this
    25        action might be seen in one sense simply as public
              relation exercise.  In one sense, that is entirely right. 
    26        It is indeed true of most defamation actions because 
              plaintiffs who are defamed mostly seek vindication not 
    27        money.  My Lord, in this case it is peculiarly apt.  What
              these plaintiffs seek is, in effect, a declaration by a
    28        judge at the High Court in England that the allegations
              complained of are false, why they are false and they
    29        should not be repeated.
 
    30        My Lord, by that means these plaintiffs hope that once and
              for all the media and the public who properly depend upon

Prev Next Index