Day 312 - 11 Dec 96 - Page 44


     
     1
     2   MR. MORRIS:  That is fine then.  I have a newspaper report of it
     3        from the Financial Times, March 14th 1995.
     4
     5   MR. JUSTICE BELL: Do you have his thick bundle?
     6
     7   MR. MORRIS:  We actually brought them today, yes.
     8
     9   MR. JUSTICE BELL: It is in volume 1, it is the first one in
    10        divider 3, volume 1.
    11
    12   MR. MORRIS:  Right.  I am not sure if it has the full...  I have
    13        not looked at that, I do not know if it has the full
    14        implications of this case, because what happened...  If
    15        I can just hand up this (handed).  If I give one to the
    16        Plaintiffs.  Apparently, and this relates also to our
    17        witness statement from Reed Milsaps about US law, that
    18        rather than going to the details of the UK court decision
    19        on the Telnikov case that Matusevitch tried to have the
    20        judgment enforced in the USA.
    21
    22   MR. RAMPTON:  No, my Lord, it was not, it was Telnikov.  I have
    23        to be in the case.  What actually happened was that
    24        Matusevitch, an emigrant, who was the Defendant, emigrated
    25        to Washington after the end of the case.  Telnikov, the
    26        Defendant, tried to have his damages and costs executed in
    27        Washington as a registered judgment.  The Washington court
    28        said, no, because under US law Telnikov would have had to
    29        have proved falsity and malice in order to succeed, and
    30        that was not part of English law.  Therefore, by its own
    31        constitutional rules the Washington court would not enforce
    32        the judgment.
    33
    34   MR. MORRIS:  Right.  Thank you.  I was getting a bit confused.
    35        I was getting confused with who is the Plaintiff and who is
    36        the Defendant.
    37
    38   MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes.  What is the point you want to make on
    39        Telnikov?
    40
    41   MR. MORRIS:  The point I want to make that the UK libel -- two
    42        things.  First of all, that, as we know, the laws are
    43        different in the USA.  They have been cited positively in
    44        the NUM judgment; we have cited them positively in this
    45        case.  The McDonald's Corporation itself, we argue, cannot
    46        sue, could not sue, us and could not sue people for
    47        distribution of the London Greenpeace fact sheet in the
    48        States, and we say what is their motive for being the First
    49        Plaintiff, is it an improper motive bearing in mind what
    50        reputation they have here distinct from the McDonald's
    51        restaurants UK?
    52
    53        Also, bearing in mind that if they did get a judgment here
    54        it would not be enforceable in the USA, which is where they
    55        are constituted.  Therefore, we invite the court to infer,
    56        we would say the only possible inference is, that they do
    57        have an improper motive for seeking to use a court platform
    58        which they believe is favourable to them which they could
    59        not do elsewhere, and they could not enforce elsewhere or
    60        elsewhere of relevance, which is in the USA.  I think that

Prev Next Index