Day 052 - 21 Nov 94 - Page 53


     
     1        in the words that he published, and not the time of day or
     2        the dates of publication, but what it is that is defamatory
     3        of the plaintiff in the publication that he says is true.
     4
     5        The reason why, in our respectful submission, that is an
     6        obligation -- well, there are two reasons.  The first is as
     7        a matter of universal law in civil cases, it is the
     8        obligation of each side to inform the other side what is
     9        the case they have to meet; secondly, as important or more
    10        important, the court has to know what is the issue between
    11        the parties.  If, for example, in the present case the
    12        Plaintiffs' case is, "the pamphlet accuses us of selling
    13        food which causes cancer and heart disease", and that is
    14        not true, your Lordship needs to know whether the
    15        Defendants say, "Oh, you are wrong, it is true", or whether
    16        they say, "You are wrong, it does not mean that and what it
    17        does mean is true".
    18
    19        If we are right at the end of the case and it means that
    20        the Plaintiffs' food causes cancer and heart disease, and
    21        the Defendants do not try to meet that case, then, as
    22        I think I said earlier, the defence must fail.  The
    23        evidence which they have adduced on that part of the case
    24        could only go to damages.  If it could go to that, there is
    25        some authority it may not be permissible even to put it in
    26        that area, as it happens that is a theoretical problem in
    27        this case.
    28
    29   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Well, it is a theoretical problem or it may
    30        be, because I may decide that however the Defendants view
    31        it they have called evidence to the effect that diet, etc.,
    32        causes, and to the effect that a significant number of
    33        people eat sufficient McDonald's food for that to affect
    34        their diet.
    35
    36   MR. RAMPTON:  Yes.  But that in a sense would meet the case
    37        advanced by the Plaintiffs.
    38
    39   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  By you.
    40
    41   MR. RAMPTON:  To an extent. Obviously to an extent only because
    42        it would be confined to that section of the population,
    43        however great or however small, that kind of diet at
    44        McDonald's.  It does not matter where else they might fill
    45        in with the diet.  Whether that was an answer to the
    46        case -----
    47
    48   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Which you now want to plead?
    49
    50   MR. RAMPTON:  Yes, and as we would say consistent with 
    51        generalisation about McDonald's food in the pamphlet, is 
    52        another question.  But those are questions for the 
    53        future.    Equally, it might be that the effect of the
    54        evidence adduced by the Defendants failed to reach even
    55        that standard, and that they succeeded in establishing only
    56        that there was a recognised association requiring or
    57        suggesting the need for further investigation between diet
    58        and degenerative disease.
    59
    60   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  A middle meaning might be, just as an

Prev Next Index