Day 294 - 05 Nov 96 - Page 07


     
     1        defamatory but which you say is justified anyway?
     2
     3   MR. MORRIS:   I don't really understand the point.
     4
     5   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Most of your efforts in the case were
     6        designed to show that McDonald's food was likely to lead to
     7        a risk of food poisoning; a real risk of food poisoning,
     8        that is what it appeared to be aimed at.
     9
    10   MS. STEEL:   I think the thing is that the meaning we have
    11        pleaded is what the meaning of that section of the leaflet
    12        is.  But obviously, when people read that they may think
    13        that that would equally apply to McDonald's as anybody
    14        else, whether or not it is defamatory -----
    15
    16   MR. JUSTICE BELL:   So you do say that is the meaning, that is
    17        -----
    18
    19   MR. MORRIS:   Of the section 'what is your poison', yes.
    20
    21   MS. STEEL:   Because McDonald's are not specifically mentioned.
    22        Obviously, they do sell meat products.  So it would be
    23        equally applicable to them.
    24
    25   MR. MORRIS:   It is not in itself defamatory, but it relates to
    26        the context and the general charge about the 'at worse
    27        poisonous', which is what McDonald's are jumping up and
    28        down about.
    29
    30   MR. JUSTICE BELL:   Yes.  There is nothing at all -- well, it
    31        has got cases of food poisoning, yes.  Just pause a
    32        moment.  You have not formulated another meaning which you
    33        would bat for, then, which you would say is defamatory but
    34        which is justified?
    35
    36   MR. MORRIS:   About which section?   The 'What's Your Poison'
    37        section?
    38
    39   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Well, anything in the leaflet which might
    40        relate to food poisoning or damage to the health from
    41        eating the food apart from the degenerative diseases which
    42        we put under 'nutrition'.
    43
    44   MS. STEEL:   I mean, I think the point is that the meaning that
    45        we have pleaded was in response to what the Plaintiffs were
    46        saying.  We say that that section of the leaflet does not
    47        specifically mention McDonald's; the section on the
    48        previous page about the food being at best mediocre at
    49        worse poisonous does not specifically relate to food
    50        poisoning, but it relates to any of the criticisms made of
    51        the food within the leaflet because it is just a worse case
    52        scenario.  As we know, there have been worse case scenarios
    53        even within McDonald's.  For example, the incident they
    54        have admitted in Preston.
    55
    56   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I do not think I am making myself clear.
    57        Forget for a moment whether it relates to McDonald's or
    58        not.  In fact, I find it very difficult to see how anything
    59        in this leaflet could be said not to relate to McDonald's,
    60        unless it is quite clear that it does not.  You may have a

Prev Next Index