Day 001 - 28 Jun 94 - Page 20


     
     1        can ask how it squares with the defendants' repeated and
              increasingly loud claims in the course of this litigation,
     2        that they are unwaged environmentalists.  Unwaged they may
              be; environmentalists, one might quarrel with.
     3
              My Lord, there are only three things I should say about
     4        that particular paragraph concerning McDonald's on page 2
              of that leaflet at this stage.  Mr. Bishop, one of the
     5        investigators, attended a meeting of the offices of the
              group at 5 Caledonian Road on 2nd August 1990.  The
     6        defendants, Mr. Morris and Miss Steel, with Mr. Gravett
              took charge of the meeting.  The defendant, Mr. Morris,
     7        asked Mr. Bishop to post a copy of the document I have
              just read to Germany in response to enquiry for
     8        information about the group.
 
     9        My Lord, if I may continue with my account of the findings
              of the investigators, they found, as well as being prime
    10        movers in the anti-McDonald's campaign in general, the
              defendants were principal organisers of the annual
    11        anti-McDonald's Fayre at Conway Hall, at which in 1989
              copies of the leaflet complained of:  "What is wrong with
    12        McDonald's?" were made freely available to members of the
              public in large number.
    13
              They found, did the investigators, that almost invariably
    14        in response to an enquiry by post to the group would
              involve enclosing  that leaflet, the leaflet complained of
    15        in this action, in the reply.  Most of those responses
              were sent to places within the United Kingdom, but many
    16        were sent abroad as well.  On one occasion, 1st March
              1990, Mr. Morris was observed putting the leaflet
    17        complained of, amongst others, into envelopes in response
              to the enquiries.
    18
              My Lord, in the light of that information which had
    19        enabled the plaintiffs to identify the defendants, amongst
              others, as being the principal source of the poison,
    20        McDonald's decided to take action to stop it.
 
    21        In consequence, my Lord, I think it was on 20th September
              1990 they wrote to five members of the group, including
    22        David Morris and Helen Steel, enclosing a writ.  Your
              Lordship will find that in the same pink volume 2 at tab
    23        13.  It is right at the back of the bundle.  I will read
              it out because it shows, we will submit, the very fair and
    24        reasonable approach taken by McDonald's in this matter.
 
    25        There is a letter to Mr. Morris on pages 1 and 2 and a
              letter in identical terms save that she is addressed 
    26         "Madam" on pages 3 and 4.  I will read the one to Mr. 
              Morris: 
    27
              "Dear Sir,
    28
              We act for McDonald's Corporation of Oakbrook in Illinois,
    29        U.S.A. who run the McDonald's Restaurant chain in the
              U.S.A. and elsewhere in the world, and by McDonald's
    30        Restaurants Limited, the company which runs McDonald's
              restaurants situation in the United Kingdom.

Prev Next Index