Day 309 - 03 Dec 96 - Page 68


     
     1        action on the Defendants dragging CFCs into this case by
     2        the scruff of its neck in order to try and create further
     3        damage to McDonald's, if I said that, then your Lordship
     4        would have to ask yourself the question:  Did they honestly
     5        believe it?  Was there introduction to that issue into this
     6        case born of malice, or was it because they genuinely
     7        thought it made a contribution to proving the truth about
     8        McDonald's?
     9
    10   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes, I think I did not express myself very
    11        clearly.  It really amounts to this:  If I am allowed to
    12        take heed of the fact -- if I decide that the Background
    13        Briefing said that it was a lie to say that McDonald's were
    14        responsible for damage to the ozone layer -- I appreciate
    15        you say I cannot take that into account because of the
    16        history which I have developed -- but if I decide that the
    17        Defendants can rely on that in support of their
    18        counterclaim, I still do not have to look into damage to
    19        the ozone layer and CFCs or HCFCs because if I say, "Well,
    20        they believed it was true, so it was an unjustified
    21        defamation of them to say they lied about that".
    22
    23   MR. RAMPTON:  No, because if the evidence is that such a belief,
    24        though stated, was not credible on the evidence -----
    25
    26   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I appreciate that.  Then I would go on.
    27
    28   MR. RAMPTON:  You would have to.
    29
    30   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Suppose I said in relation to this they
    31        honestly believed on -- I would have to look into it
    32        because I would have to go on to say, "On grounds which
    33        were there for them to accept, if they chose to; even
    34        though you and Mr. Atkinson might not have thought it was
    35        convincing enough, there was enough there to convince
    36        them", so I would have to look into it.
    37
    38   MR. RAMPTON:  Yes.
    39
    40   MR. MORRIS:  Can I say it relates to the Plaintiffs' defence in
    41        the counterclaim that we should have known the -- that the
    42        service of witness statements, which included CFCs, served
    43        to convince us that our whole case was based on lies, it
    44        goes to -- obviously, we believe it is relevant to
    45        ecological catastrophe which is -----
    46
    47   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I know that.  I am not talking about that.
    48        If I was against you on that -----
    49
    50   MR. MORRIS:  If it is a general charge, ecological catastrophe, 
    51        we are entitled to argue that ----- 
    52 
    53   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I do not want to argue that again.  You
    54        argued that to me before.
    55
    56   MR. MORRIS:  OK.  Thirdly, that if by some quirk it was not
    57        pleaded, I do not know why because I was not involved with
    58        checking those pleadings but -- which Mr. Rampton laughs
    59        at, but that is a fact of life being a litigant in person
    60        not knowing the law -- if that is the only way for some

Prev Next Index