Day 186 - 10 Nov 95 - Page 25


     
     1        misleading, if that was the claim made in relation to a
     2        large company, I would have thought that must be
     3        defamatory.
     4
     5   MR. MORRIS:  But the question is whether it is defamatory of
     6        their products -----
     7
     8   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  No.  It is -----
     9
    10   MR. MORRIS:  It may be defamatory of their nutrition guide.
    11
    12   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  It is said it is disparaging of their
    13        products, but it is also defamatory of them in the
    14        operation of their business, because it is saying: "You are
    15        not only selling duff stuff; you know it is duff or you
    16        ought to know it is duff, but you are saying it is
    17        brilliant."  Is that not the ordinary terminology?
    18
    19   MR. MORRIS:  The thing is, if it is defamatory, it will be
    20        defamatory of their nutrition guide for not giving the
    21        whole story, in which case the -----
    22
    23   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  It is both.  It does not have to be one or
    24        the other.
    25
    26   MR. MORRIS:  Well -----
    27
    28   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  If you say this nutrition guide is misleading
    29        because it says that the product is good and they know or
    30        ought to know that it is bad, yes, that is disparaging of
    31        the nutrition guide, but is it not also defamatory of the
    32        company which puts it out?
    33
    34   MR. MORRIS:  Yes, it can be defamatory of the company that puts
    35        it out, but it will be defamatory in that we are
    36        criticising their lack of telling the whole truth in their
    37        nutrition guide.
    38
    39   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes.
    40
    41   MR. MORRIS:  But then the question becomes:  well, are they
    42        telling the whole truth or are they not telling the whole
    43        truth; are they making clear in their nutrition guide,
    44        specifically, that a diet high in these products is linked
    45        to disease?
    46
    47   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  That is a matter when we go back to the
    48        merits.  But, on meaning, it is something which I put on
    49        one side, you know.
    50 
    51   MR. MORRIS:  I think the Plaintiffs have to satisfy you that the 
    52        meaning is defamatory and ----- 
    53
    54   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  You go on with your argument.  This all
    55        started with Ms. Steel asking me does she have to go
    56        through what I have called my draft line by line, as it
    57        were, suggesting where it should be altered, to which the
    58        answer is "no".  You have taken a couple of points on it,
    59        and I understand the basis of the criticism you make, and I
    60        have the meaning of the leaflet, as you would argue it to

Prev Next Index