Day 311 - 06 Dec 96 - Page 55


     
     1        along, because I do not have any authority about this, if
     2        the terms of a written, reasoned judgment from a judge are
     3        apt to help restore that damaged reputation, then that in
     4        some part fulfils the function of the vindicatory aspect of
     5        the damages.
     6
     7   MR. JUSTICE BELL: But there are so many imponderables are there
     8        not?  I mean, to what extent the reasoning in the judge's
     9        judgment if it is in favour of the company gets reported?
    10        If I decide to deliver in open court a summary of my
    11        findings and hand down my written judgment at the end of
    12        the day, should you get more damages if you succeed because
    13        I have not read the whole judgment out in court then than
    14        if I had taken an alternative procedure?
    15
    16   MR. RAMPTON:  And to what extent -- well, no, no, that point I
    17        was about to make is a bad one, because the extent-----
    18
    19   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Does it depend on how well, if at all, it is
    20        reported, if it is in your favour?
    21
    22   MR. RAMPTON:  Yes, it obviously does, but there is a fiction.
    23        Just as the Defendants conduct in court, particularly in
    24        the promotion of unsustainable allegations, is taken to
    25        increase the damage to McDonald's reputation, even if there
    26        are not actually any reporters here, though there may well
    27        be members of the public here, so to the same limited
    28        extent, I suppose, the terms of the judgment will, as it
    29        were, enjoy the same benefit, the same slightly fictional
    30        benefit.  At any rate, if the judgment is favourable, even
    31        in part, those are parts which McDonald's themselves can
    32        use for the future.
    33
    34   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I can see the reasoning.  I wonder whether it
    35        actually accords with reality, because those who are the
    36        least bit interested in this case, if your clients
    37        succeeded, might well be expected to see what the amount of
    38        damages is but even the bravest of them might blanch at the
    39        prospect of reading the judgment.
    40
    41   MR. RAMPTON:  Yes.  That is absolutely right.  Mrs. Brinley-Codd
    42        has put a note to me.  I hope I might be as realistic as
    43        she is in this area of human activity.  What happens, to
    44        take up your Lordship's point, if the press only report the
    45        damages and not the judgment?
    46
    47   MR. JUSTICE BELL: Well, suppose you were to win at the end of
    48        the day but I say things which are favourable to McDonald's
    49        and things which are critical of McDonald's and the press
    50        make a passing reference to the favourable things and dwell 
    51        on the unfavourable things, should I foresee that might 
    52        happen and adjust the damages accordingly?  There seem to 
    53        me to be so many things one just cannot anticipate at the
    54        time of an award if you win.
    55
    56   MR. RAMPTON:  It seemed an attractive submission in principle,
    57        but I see the practical difficulties.  It makes
    58        your Lordship's assessment really subject to a detailed
    59        analysis of the judgment by your Lordship before you do,
    60        and having to try and make in your own mind an estimate of

Prev Next Index