Day 008 - 07 Jul 94 - Page 55
1 clients an injustice.
2 What I have to do is listen patiently to this evidence.
If it is clearly and unarguably irrelevant, then I do not
3 want to hear it, but I cannot say, putting it at its very,
very lowest, that this is irrelevant.
4
MISS STEEL: I cannot see there is anything in the pleadings
5 relating to this, despite what Mr. Rampton has said. He
has not particularised the allegations which he says are
6 repeated in the future leaflet. If we are going to
continue, then so be it, but he does keep standing up and
7 objecting saying we are bringing up things that are not in
the pleadings.
8
MR. JUSTICE BELL: I think on such occasions as he has done
9 that, save perhaps on one or two occasions where you have
accepted the comment, we have gone on and heard it anyway.
10
MISS STEEL: No. I believe there were some points we were not
11 allowed to bring up. For example, the thing about
children being injured at parties.
12
MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes, but that was because that had nothing
13 to do with times and dates.
14 MISS STEEL: I think this is the same situation.
15 MR. MORRIS: What we are saying is we are flexible and it is
important to know the truth about McDonald's Corporation.
16 But, to put it bluntly, we do want the court used as a
propaganda platform for hour after hour of stuff which is
17 not strictly nailed down as part of the case. So that is
all we are saying. We do not mind hearing things, but as
18 long as there is some kind of understanding, objectivity
about what is being discussed at great length.
19
MR. RAMPTON: May I read your Lordship part of the defendants'
20 defence on this very topic:
21 "The defendants seek to justify the following meanings".
This is for the defendants' peace of mind, because I know
22 your Lordship has already made the ruling, but I do not
want anybody to think that I am cheating.
23
"The Defendants seek to justify the following meanings in
24 respect of each plaintiff: That the huge scale and nature
of the first and second plaintiffs' business in every way
25 involves them in purchasing many tonnes of paper, most of
which is not recycled and has therefore contributed to
26 the destruction of trees and forests. Further, that for
many years the first and second plaintiff used materials
27 for food packaging which were harmful to the environment.
The first and second plaintiffs continue to use packaging
28 which is harmful to the environment".
29 That is the defence which I am seeking to rebut.
30 MISS STEEL: I think this was pleaded sometime ago, not only
that, on their own admission, they are saying all
