Day 283 - 21 Oct 96 - Page 40


     
     1   MR. MORRIS:   Yes.
     2
     3   MR. JUSTICE BELL:   Now, I do not say any more.  I have sort of
     4        trailed my coat so everyone-----
     5
     6   MR. MORRIS:   We had just got to the point where we were
     7        beginning to think how to split facts and comment.  I had
     8        not been aware of that point at all.
     9
    10   MR JUSTICE BELL:  It is just as well I mentioned it now.  Put it
    11        on one side now, carry on with what you want to tell me
    12        about.  At the end of the day the simplest approach may be
    13        to just look at what is said and say, would an ordinary
    14        reader treat that as comment, or primarily think of it as a
    15        statement of fact?   You have got to be aware of -- I will
    16        use another phrase of yours -- what might be a hidden
    17        agenda so far as these considerations are concerned.
    18        Anyway, there we are.  Carry on.  Pick up, I interrupted
    19        you, where you were.
    20
    21   MR. MORRIS:   It was a very useful digression.  We say that the
    22        plaintiffs have to do the same job in proving that the fact
    23        sheet is untrue and to show how it has been proven to be
    24        untrue and that we knew it was untrue if they are going to
    25        succeed with their counterclaim.  Sorry, if they are going
    26        to defend themselves effectively against our counterclaim.
    27
    28        Now, I have dealt with the some of the contents of the fact
    29        sheet anyway, and I will leave meanings until we do each
    30        section in more detail.  Especially now after that last
    31        discussion, we need to have a proper discussion about that,
    32        Helen and myself.  But if I can just throw a bit of a
    33        spanner into the meanings submissions, we also have the
    34        plaintiffs' opinion on what the meanings are in their press
    35        release that we have counterclaimed against and it may be
    36        thought helpful, because that is out of their own mouths to
    37        the public, not drawn up for legal advantage but actually
    38        stated to the public, stated publicly, and it says that
    39        they are lies.
    40
    41        Before we just go through what some of the witnesses have
    42        stated, which I am going to start doing today, some of the
    43        evidence, a look at the witnesses that have appeared in
    44        this case we would say -- although they all have to be
    45        dealt with one by one in many respects -- the general trend
    46        was in terms of McDonald's witnesses, apart from some --
    47        I do not think any of the experts were completely
    48        independent, some of them, if not all, had had contracts
    49        with McDonald's, therefore there was a commercial
    50        relationship, whether in the past, present or future.  That 
    51        should be -- may be with the exception of Dr. Arnott, I do 
    52        not know about the others, but anyway, it struck me that 
    53        most of the so-called experts, most of the experts called
    54        by the plaintiffs, had some commercial relationship at some
    55        time with McDonald's.
    56
    57        Secondly, I think all the other witnesses certainly,
    58        virtually all of them, and I am just doing this on my feet
    59        now, were officials of McDonald's in one way or another.
    60        From low level management all the way up to board of

Prev Next Index