Day 177 - 26 Oct 95 - Page 30


     
     1        claim; he is giving his own view about what the leaflet
     2        alleges.  He says:
     3
     4             "The leaflet makes allegations against the
     5             Plaintiffs which are clearly extremely serious
     6             and defamatory.  They include charges which may
     7             well have the meanings, firstly" -- and then it
     8             is about the rainforest -- "secondly, that the
     9             food sold by McDonald's is junk food and is
    10             injurious to the health of those who eat it and
    11             at least may cause cancer, high blood pressure
    12             and other symptoms of ill health in those who
    13             eat it, that is to say the food."
    14
    15        My Lord, I do not see between that -- no doubt off-the-cuff
    16        and perhaps, therefore, all the better for it -- that
    17        off-the-cuff rendering of the leaflet's effect on
    18        Drake J.'s mind, I do not see a lot of water between that
    19        and what we have pleaded at paragraph F of the Amended
    20        Statement of Claim.
    21
    22   MR. MORRIS:  Can I say something as a matter of fact?  I was
    23        present at that hearing, and we talked about this after the
    24        time.  First of all, it would be grossly irresponsible of
    25        Drake J. to make a ruling -----
    26
    27   MR. JUSTICE BELL: No.  That is not Mr. Rampton's point at all.
    28        He is not saying that Drake J. made a ruling.  He is saying
    29        that is an indication of what someone just reading it
    30        through might well make of it.
    31
    32   MR. MORRIS:  No.  Our understanding was that tht is not the
    33        impression he was given.  He was given and impression what
    34        the claims made by the Plaintiffs were; and it would have
    35        been grossly irresponsible of him to say that is what the
    36        leaflet does mean, whether it is a ruling or whether it is
    37        an indication.  I do not think he would have made such an
    38        irresponsible statement.  What we discussed at the time,
    39        and we did not challenge it at the time because we thought
    40        it was -- well, in those days we did not know what the
    41        procedures were -- but we certainly would have challenged
    42        it if he was trying to say that is his impression of what
    43        the leaflet meant; and we do not think that is what
    44        happened at that hearing.  We were quite shocked at the way
    45        that was put at the time.  But there you go.  As far as we
    46        understood, that is what he was basing on what the
    47        Plaintiffs had claimed.
    48
    49   MR. RAMPTON:  Mr. Morris is wrong about that.  In fact -----
    50 
    51   MR. MORRIS:  How do you know?  You were not there. 
    52 
    53   MR. RAMPTON:  Because I have read the judgment.  Later on in the
    54        judgment -- I think it is page 12 -- Drake J. does actually
    55        set out what he understands the Plaintiffs to be saying
    56        that the leaflet means.  Here, he is setting out the
    57        impression that it has made on him.  As I said, that does
    58        not bind your Lordship.  Your Lordship may not even find it
    59        persuasive.
    60

Prev Next Index