Day 186 - 10 Nov 95 - Page 42


     
     1        which was 177, when he made a submission on page 19,
     2        line 9:  "Of course, in this case we are not in the least
     3        concerned with any kind of innuendo meaning.  If the words
     4        in this pamphlet are defamatory of McDonald's, then they
     5        are defamatory in their natural and ordinary meaning; as we
     6        would contend, very often in their literal meaning".
     7
     8   MR. RAMPTON:  It is very tedious, but Mr. Morris is ------
     9
    10   MR. MORRIS: " ... an implication drawn from the context of the
    11        leaflet as a whole" and, therefore, it is nothing to do
    12        with innuendo.
    13
    14   MR. RAMPTON:  My Lord, Mr. Morris makes a submission borne
    15        entirely of ignorance.  I just mention ------
    16
    17   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  You need not follow it up because ------
    18
    19   MR. RAMPTON:  No, I just mention it for his benefit so that we
    20        do not have this ever again in the course of this case.  He
    21        should acquire and read a copy of Gatley so that he knows
    22        what is said in paragraph 95 on page 49 through to 51.
    23
    24   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  He does not have to obtain a copy of Gatley
    25        because he very kindly photocopied those pages for us.
    26
    27   MR. RAMPTON:  So much the better for me; it is a pity he did not
    28        read it.
    29
    30   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Anyway, carry on.  I understand the point you
    31        are making in relation to that and -----
    32
    33   MR. MORRIS:  If we are going to lose a case on the grounds
    34        that  -----
    35
    36   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I am aware of the distinction, that it is not
    37        sufficient to say that a company's products are bad; one
    38        has to be able to read into the words which are complained
    39        of a meaning, you would say, of fraud or something
    40        tantamount to fraud, Mr. Rampton would say that or
    41        carelessness.  He would go down as far as that and you
    42        say:  "No, that is not in that".
    43
    44   MR. MORRIS:  So, I mean, in effect, then what would happen, what
    45        we would submit is that if you were to rule that the words
    46        are defamatory because their nutrition guide has been
    47        criticised, then it would just be a matter, really, of
    48        seeing whether the criticisms of the nutrition guide are
    49        accurate or not, and if that is established the rest of it
    50        is fair comment based upon facts.  So, really, what we are 
    51        looking at is the nutrition guide, if you were to rule that 
    52        the meaning was defamatory for that reason.  That is what 
    53        we would submit.
    54
    55   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes.
    56
    57   MS. STEEL:   If I just say again that even if Mr. Rampton's
    58        argument was accepted, that carelessness was enough,
    59        I still argue that on this case the pleadings that the
    60        Plaintiffs have pleaded would not be defamatory because the

Prev Next Index