Day 294 - 05 Nov 96 - Page 08
1 point, for instance, on pet food in relation to that
2 because of the whole layout.
3
4 But whether I am right or wrong about that, just for the
5 moment suppose that it does relate to McDonald's. Is there
6 a meaning which is defamatory of McDonald's there, because
7 to say meat is responsible for the majority of cases of
8 food poisoning, and chicken and minced meat are
9 particularly bad, which is the meaning which you have
10 pleaded, and the only meaning at the moment, does not seem
11 to me to be defamatory. If I decide that is all it means,
12 then we have wasted several weeks of evidence, because
13 McDonald's have no case of libel against you if they prove
14 that you participated in publication in relation to this
15 part of the leaflet, because it does not say anything which
16 would reduce their reputation in the eyes of ordinary
17 people.
18
19 I have got McDonald's meaning, which is really two specific
20 paragraphs. If it means that, I can see how that could be
21 argued to be defamatory. And I have got your pleaded
22 meaning in paragraph I on page 5 of tab 5, 'meat is
23 responsible for the majority of cases of food poisoning,
24 chicken and minced meat are particularly bad', which seems
25 to me at the moment is not defamatory of anyone and
26 therefore not of McDonald's.
27
28 All I am asking, just so I am confident in my mind that I
29 have not failed to give you the opportunity to address me
30 on it, is there some other meaning, not McDonald's meaning,
31 not the one you have so far pleaded, which you accept that
32 this leaflet bears in respect of food poisoning and which
33 you would accept is defamatory of McDonald's? The answer
34 to that may be 'no'.
35
36 MS. STEEL: The answer is 'no'. Yes.
37
38 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Right. Let me make a note. (Pause)
39 Yes?
40
41 MS. STEEL: Just about the point about whether or not it
42 relates to McDonald's, the point is it does not specify
43 McDonald's. Obviously they are part of selling meat so it
44 relates to them in that way, but it is not saying that they
45 are any better or worse than anybody else; it is a general
46 criticism of meat.
47
48 MR. JUSTICE BELL: That may be another point. It may be
49 defamatory of other people as well, or it may be that the
50 criticisms you make of McDonald's could be equally -- or
51 which the leaflet which you have levied at McDonald's in
52 the course of this part of the case, and which the leaflet
53 levies -- could be aimed at other people as well.
54
55 MS. STEEL: Yes, that is what it is about, really; it is about
56 the meat industry as a whole.
57
58 The other point that you asked about, about the fact that
59 we justified specific incidents which related to
60 McDonald's, that is because obviously we are entitled to
