Day 186 - 10 Nov 95 - Page 36


     
     1   MS. STEEL:   OK.
     2
     3   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  What I thought you were talking about was G,
     4        that if they were not going to pursue G, "Well, can we
     5        strike it out now, please?"
     6
     7   MS. STEEL:   That was one of them.
     8
     9   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes.  I just saw no useful point in that; and
    10        one does not make orders just for the sake of making them,
    11        since the one thing which is going to come out of this
    12        argument is a ruling by me on what the leaflet means so far
    13        as what we have called "nutrition" is concerned and whether
    14        that meaning is defamatory.  If I find a meaning which is
    15        defamatory and the case goes on for further evidence, if
    16        need be, and certainly further argument in due course, if
    17        I find a meaning and then go on to say that, in my
    18        judgment, that is not defamatory of the Plaintiffs, then
    19        everyone can forget about nutrition; you need not even
    20        mention the words "strike out".  When I come to my
    21        judgment, whatever I find about environment, recycling,
    22        waste, employment or whatever, I will be finding in your
    23        favour in relation to nutrition, and you will know that.
    24
    25   MS. STEEL:   OK.  I think it was just because I kind of felt
    26        that it would be tidier if they were out of the way.
    27
    28   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  It does not matter, because the greater
    29        (i.e., the decision on this preliminary issue) includes the
    30        lesser (i.e., any question of striking out bits of
    31        pleadings).
    32
    33   MS. STEEL:   OK.  I will turn what was a strike out application
    34        into an argument about whether or not the meanings proposed
    35        are defamatory.
    36
    37   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes, all right.
    38
    39   MS. STEEL:   The case -- I do not know whether you have it to
    40        hand -- I think it is number 11 in the bundle.
    41
    42   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes.  Broomfield v. Greig.
    43
    44   MS. STEEL:   Yes.  I would say that even if the meaning of the
    45        cartoon and of "McCancer" were as extreme as the Plaintiffs
    46        paint them (which obviously we do not accept) and they
    47        thereby got their meaning that they pleaded about meals
    48        which cause cancer of the breast and bowel and heart
    49        disease in their customers, even if that was the meaning,
    50        the leaflet would not be defamatory, because the Broomfield 
    51        case says that you are entitled to say that food makes 
    52        people ill, provided that there is not a deliberate motive 
    53        of intent by adulteration of the products.
    54
    55        There is no statement of any intent on the part of
    56        McDonald's to cause harm to their customers within the
    57        leaflet.  In fact, the leaflet does not actually say
    58        anything about the food, really.  The closest or the
    59        strongest the leaflet gets is about what McDonald's do not
    60        make clear in their nutrition guides, which does not imply

Prev Next Index