Day 299 - 13 Nov 96 - Page 06
1
2 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I know. Then the final bit is that they are
3 promoting, they say, consumption of the meals as a fun
4 event when they know full well that the contents could
5 poison the children who eat them. I mean, at the moment it
6 really seems to me that what the Defendants are saying and
7 what might be right -----
8
9 MS. STEEL: Plaintiffs.
10
11 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes, thank you. -- are saying is that they
12 market their goods heavily in one way or another with a
13 view to exploiting children in two ways; first of all,
14 getting them to up their profits by dragging their parents
15 into McDonald's; and secondly, doing that when the food is
16 not going to do them any good, in fact might well do them
17 some harm.
18
19 MS. STEEL: Yes. Obviously, we do not agree with their pleaded
20 meanings, but I am coming on to all these things. I was
21 trying to deal with 'I' first, the one about using gimmicks
22 to cover up the fact that the food is low quality. I mean,
23 it is not clear whether or not they are saying that, you
24 know, to say that McDonald's uses gimmicks is defamatory.
25 That is why I felt that I had to deal with it. I mean,
26 I have tried to -- I am not clear what the Plaintiffs are
27 complaining about in this section of the case, which
28 specific parts they accept and which they do not.
29
30 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I am not sure that, if I had not sat down to
31 draft this Statement of Claim myself, I would not just have
32 said that the defamatory meaning -- this part of the
33 leaflet -- is that it alleges that McDonald's aim much
34 advertising and promotion at children because they are
35 susceptible to it and they will put pressure on their
36 parents to take them to McDonald's although the food is
37 poor and even poisonous, and in that way they are
38 deliberately exploiting children.
39
40 MR. RAMPTON: My Lord, I am not sure that it really matters
41 what the precise terminology, if your Lordship were a jury,
42 of the Statement of Claim is.
43
44 MR. JUSTICE BELL: No, would not know what it was anyway.
45
46 MR. RAMPTON: It is merely intended as a summary of the nature
47 of the Plaintiffs' complaint. The jury would not be
48 allowed to go higher than what is pleaded. But if the jury
49 should re-interpret the words complained of in the way your
50 Lordship has just done, which is another way of, as it
51 were, summarising what has been attempted in the Statement
52 of Claim, there could not possibly be any objection,
53 anyway, as your Lordship says, one would not know. But the
54 natural ordinary meaning pleaded in the Statement of Claim
55 is not, I would say, to be construed in like a deed or
56 contract.
57
58 MS. STEEL: That has left me none the wiser in terms of whether
59 the Plaintiffs are objecting to the description of the fact
60 that they dress up their food with the use of gimmicks.
