Day 052 - 21 Nov 94 - Page 22
1 a chain of restaurants, than to say that people who eat
2 there expose themselves to a risk of cancer and heart
3 disease and a danger of food-poisoning". My Lord, it would
4 appear from that passage that Mr. Justice Drake, having
5 indicated what in his view might turn out to be the actual
6 meanings, is interpreting what is already pleaded as
7 meaning roughly the same thing, that is to say, that the
8 food they eat may cause them cancer and heart disease.
9
10 My Lord, then there is your Lordship on 3rd November --
11 that is tab 2 -- this is page 2 of your Lordship's ruling.
12 Again it escapes me what the ruling was actually about, but
13 that does not any longer matter. Having drawn attention to
14 the leaflet and then at letter B having read out the "Mc"
15 headings which I read out earlier this morning, your
16 Lordship says this at letter C:
17
18 "The Plaintiffs claim that the text of the leaflet amounts
19 to a series of defamatory allegations, as pleaded in
20 paragraphs 4A to P of the Statement of Claim at pages 17 to
21 19 of the pleadings bundle.
22
23 Those paragraphs can be summarised as alleging the meanings
24 that", then if your Lordship goes down to just below letter
25 F: "Thirdly, that the Plaintiffs misled the public as to
26 the nutritional value of the food which they sell and which
27 in fact causes cancer and heart disease and to which people
28 become addicted and which is poisonous".
29
30 My Lord, that could not be a clearer an indication, in fact
31 -- no doubt, your Lordship may have taken into account the
32 actual wording of the pamphlet and context -- to the
33 Defendants what it was that the Plaintiffs were complaining
34 about in relation to this part of the pamphlet, which in
35 fact causes cancer and heart disease. Because what your
36 Lordship has done is to reinterpret what is pleaded in
37 paragraph 4F of the Statement of Claim as it then stood.
38
39 My Lord, there is a short passage from my submissions on
40 21st December, page 23 of the relevant transcript, at
41 letter B. This is the argument about whether there should
42 be a jury or not in this case. What I said at letter B was
43 this: "Of all the issues in the case, perhaps the most
44 important one in this sense" that is to say, in relation to
45 jury or no jury, I think, "is the allegation that the
46 Plaintiffs' food causes illness, disease and death,
47 particularly perhaps by the route of cancer. Now that is a
48 very serious allegation." That was on 21st December 1993.
49
50 Your Lordship giving judgment on that question -- tab 4 --
51 again gave expression to what your Lordship understood the
52 Plaintiffs' complaint about this part of the leaflet to
53 be. Page 33 of the transcript starting at letter C, your
54 Lordship says: "I will not repeat the background to the
55 claim in any detail. It arises out of the alleged
56 distribution or part in the distribution played by the
57 Defendants of a leaflet which is said to be defamatory of
58 the Plaintiffs in the following respects". Then your
59 Lordship deals with rainforests and recycling and waste.
60
