Day 245 - 07 May 96 - Page 55


     
     1        there is no truth in this statement and we apologise to
     2        McDonald's Hamburgers Limited for any embarrassment
     3        caused."
     4
     5        That correction only mentions rainforests; does not it?
     6        A.  Yes.
     7
     8   Q.   You are not complaining about ----
     9        A.   It mention bags.
    10
    11   Q.   -- Anything else that is in the leaflet where you have
    12        mentioned about slaughterhouses?
    13
    14   MR. RAMPTON:  I am afraid now I have to intervene. I have been
    15        very puzzled for the last quarter of an hour as to where
    16        this leads.
    17
    18        May I refer your Lordship to a passage in Gatley and
    19        although we have got some days this week, we do not have
    20        weeks left for the trial.  My Lord, it is paragraph 1443.
    21        I have to guess because I have been listening and I cannot
    22        see what on earth the direction is that we are going in,
    23        but this is my most intelligent guess of what this is
    24        supposed to be about and, if so, it is an illegitimate one
    25        if I am right.
    26
    27        It is on page 589 under the general heading:  "Evidence in
    28        Mitigation for Damages".  At the bottom of the page, a
    29        misleading heading: "Damages already recovered for the same
    30        libel".  Then the 14/43 general rule:
    31
    32        "The defendant cannot prove in mitigation of damages that
    33        some other person or persons have on previous occasions
    34        published the same libel or other accounts of the facts
    35        alleged in the libel for the fact that others have defamed
    36        the plaintiff is wholly irrelevant.  Such evidence is
    37        inadmissible, even when coupled with evidence that on such
    38        occasions the Plaintiff did not sue or prosecute or take
    39        any steps to contradict the charges made against him."
    40
    41        So whatever McDonald's reaction is to Veggies, the way they
    42        dealt with Veggies and so on and so forth, have no place in
    43        this case.
    44
    45   MS. STEEL:  It actually goes to 2, probably 3, issues:  Firstly,
    46        that McDonald's have now expanded their Statement of Claim
    47        to say that we are responsible for all leaflets wheresoever
    48        they are distributed, and I think that on those grounds
    49        alone we would be entitled to argue that most of the --
    50        having looked through the bundles, not as carefully as I 
    51        would like to, but certainly carefully enough to notice 
    52        that the vast majority of the leaflets that are in the 
    53        bundles are actually copied from Veggies' leaflets which
    54        have been amended since McDonald's wrote to Veggies in
    55        1987.  So, therefore, we should not be held responsible for
    56        that particularly not when McDonald's are basically ----
    57
    58   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Quite regardless of that 143, what I need to
    59        know is where the particular questions on that letter are
    60        taking me in relation to an issue in the case?

Prev Next Index