Day 186 - 10 Nov 95 - Page 38
1
2 MS. STEEL: I have not got it marked.
3
4 MR. JUSTICE BELL: About five lines into his judgment: "The
5 case then simply comes to this, that the pursuer used a
6 strong expression for conveying his opinion that the bread
7 was unwholesome. He is not said to have had any improper
8 motive for saying that. He was not a rival in trade; on
9 the contrary, he is alleged to have said that his own
10 business would be promoted by the sale of unwholesome
11 bread".
12
13 MS. STEEL: Yes, that is ------
14
15 MR. JUSTICE BELL: "It would be a strong thing to say that an
16 action of damages would lie for words like these". Is that
17 the bit you had in mind?
18
19 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes, it is. Yes, thank you. That just
20 really makes the point that the fact that the leaflet says
21 that McDonald's food is unhealthy cannot be said to be
22 defamatory, and that the surgeon has actually gone so far
23 as saying that people are going to become ill as a result
24 of eating this bread, or might become ill as a result of
25 eating this bread, which was felt would not be defamatory;
26 that looking to what is reasonable freedom of speech on
27 such matters it would be a strong thing to say that an
28 action of damages would lie for words like these.
29 Therefore, people should be entitled to say if they
30 consider that food products cause people to become ill, and
31 that that is not defamatory.
32
33 Obviously, it is our case that the leaflet is talking about
34 diet in any event, but looking at just the Plaintiffs'
35 meaning, which is that the leaflet says that their food
36 causes people to become ill with cancer and heart disease,
37 that is a parallel to what is said here, that it is found
38 to be not defamatory.
39
40 If I just say actually that where that is actually referred
41 to in the original introduction about what it says, because
42 it is put slightly stronger there, on page 564, about
43 two-thirds of the way down, it says: "... the defender, on
44 or about the said 3rd October 1867", etcetera, "did say
45 that, in the defender's opinion, the bread baked by the
46 pursuer was made of inferior flour, and probably was
47 carelessly manufactured; that it would be very much in
48 favour of defender's business as a surgeon if the pursuer
49 were to be allowed to continue making such bread unchecked
50 - meaning thereby that the pursuer's customers would
51 contract disease by consuming the bread baked by the
52 pursuer". I do not know whether that did explain it any
53 better than Lord Deas.
54
55 MR. JUSTICE BELL: That is part of the pleading of the pursuer,
56 the way they were putting their case, he was putting his
57 case.
58
59 MS. STEEL: Right, but it was just that that was found to be
60 not defamatory. I think Mr. Morris wants -----
