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?
