Day 313 - 13 Dec 96 - Page 53


     
     1        possibly be used as an example of malice.  We still think
     2        they are all relevant and we believe the court believes
     3        most are relevant, otherwise they would not have allowed
     4        them to be admissible as issues in this case and argued on
     5        both sides.  In fact, McDonald's defended many of them
     6        themselves, so they obviously believe they were relevant.
     7        I will not go into any more detail on that.
     8
     9        The next page, the point about the press coming into the
    10        courtroom, I am not even going to deal with it.  It is
    11        ridiculous.  I think Helen dealt with mostly all of that.
    12        Can I point out, of course, there is no evidence of us
    13        distributing the fact sheet, we say at all, but certainly
    14        since 1990 and this relates to, I suppose it relates to the
    15        counterclaim.  But can I point out that the evidence in the
    16        -- the evidence of the appearance on McSpotlight of the
    17        fact sheet I think was dated two days after the launch of
    18        the Webb site.  So, I do not see how our alleged
    19        involvement in launching the site can be evidence of
    20        something that appeared on the site two days later, or that
    21        there is only evidence it appeared on the site two days
    22        later, and Helen said that she was not aware it was on the
    23        site anyway.  So, that is why I was not sure if that point
    24        had been dealt with.
    25
    26        I think that is virtually it, yes.  Thank you very much.
    27
    28   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Thank you.
    29
    30   MR. RAMPTON:  My Lord, I would say, first, if I may, that
    31        I invite your Lordship to take into account, both in
    32        relation to malice on the part of the Defendants and in
    33        relation to the quantum of damages (if any), if it be
    34        awarded to the Plaintiffs, the Defendants' whole conduct of
    35        today's proceedings.  I need not say any more than that,
    36        except to say, perhaps, it is a classic example of what
    37        Lord Diplock was talking about in Broom v. Castle in the
    38        passage that I cited to your Lordship the other day.
    39
    40   MS. STEEL:  I do not want to interrupt but there is not any
    41        evidence at all that -- and I know this is a reference to
    42        the press being here -- but we actually were not aware they
    43        were coming and it was absolutely a total surprise to us.
    44
    45   MR. RAMPTON:  That is as may be, and I have no evidence to
    46        contradict it.  What I do say is that we have observed
    47        today the most cynical piece of opportunism practically in
    48        the whole of this case.
    49
    50        My Lord, can I deal with a few little matters before I come
    51        to the main point which your Lordship mentioned this
    52        morning.  First of all, in relation to the passage from
    53        Horrocks v. Lowe, starting at page 150 letter H and then
    54        letter B on 151, which is conveniently set out in that
    55        written submission on malice which Ms. Steel handed in to
    56        your Lordship this morning, or this afternoon; it is in
    57        paragraph No. 2. I do not know if your Lordship has it.
    58
    59   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes.
    60

Prev Next Index