Day 249 - 14 May 96 - Page 55


     
     1
     2   MS. STEEL:   It is a point we are entitled to test his evidence.
     3
     4   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I would rather you did not test it just by
     5        asking what happened there, so he goes through it all
     6        again.  It just takes a very long time to do it and there
     7        are more efficient ways of doing it, I feel.
     8
     9   MS. STEEL:   Can I say in relation to the other point about the
    10        malice thing, which is that it is my understanding that
    11        when the Body Shop sued Channel 4, Channel 4 lost the case
    12        because of malice.  So this business about corporations not
    13        having malicious ------
    14
    15   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Wait, please, Mr. Rampton.
    16
    17   MR. RAMPTON:  I am sorry, I was in the case, my Lord, and again
    18        it is ------
    19
    20   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  We need concern ourselves with it during the
    21        cross-examination of Mr. Nicholson, because I am not
    22        stopping you asking Mr. Nicholson about that.  I only
    23        mentioned it as a possible head where I could see that you
    24        might want to mention it, though I do not know whether you
    25        are sweeping Mr. Nicholson into that.
    26
    27   MR. MORRIS:  Obviously, the Company representatives who were
    28        involved with this counterclaim or general case who we will
    29        say are motivated by malice would come under the heading
    30        that Mr. Rampton said anyway.  So I do not see there is a
    31        problem whatsoever.
    32
    33   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I have said you need not argue that at this
    34        stage.  You can ask questions about it.  All I am trying to
    35        do because you may say, "Oh, no, there are other matters
    36        I want to concentrate on with Mr. Nicholson".  There is
    37        obviously what Ms. Steel did or did not do on the 16th
    38        October, 1989.  There is the extent to which you want to
    39        argue that McDonald's were countenancing publication of the
    40        leaflet, and it occurred to me as a third that if you were
    41        going to allege that executives of the Second Plaintiff,
    42        who are sufficiently near the nerve centre of the Second
    43        Plaintiff, to be identified as the Second Plaintiff so far
    44        as motivation is concerned were activated by malice, I
    45        would wait and hear whether you put questions in relation
    46        to that to Mr. Nicholson.  But those seem to me to be the
    47        three Indian clubs which are in the air.
    48
    49   MS. STEEL:   OK.  You told us that three people from the
    50        Company, from McDonald's, attended the London Greenpeace 
    51        anti-McDonald's fayre on the Saturday, 29th October 1988; 
    52        who were those three people? 
    53        A.  They did not attend together.
    54
    55   Q.   But who were they?
    56        A.  Tony Roots.
    57
    58   Q.   Who is?
    59        A.  Security.
    60

Prev Next Index