Day 309 - 03 Dec 96 - Page 65


     
     1
     2        What I think I will do is, I will raise the queries which
     3        were crossing my mind so at least everyone can go away with
     4        them, whether that helps or not.  But Mr. Morris makes the
     5        point that even if CFC or HCFC damage to the ozone layer is
     6        not relevant to your claim in respect of the environment,
     7        it is relevant to the allegation of lying which is made, or
     8        he says is made, in the press release and the leaflets,
     9        whether to the customer or the Background Briefing, the
    10        lies referred to in the press releases, it seems to me at
    11        the moment, are clearly lies in the leaflet.
    12
    13   MR. RAMPTON:  In the leaflet?
    14
    15   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes.
    16
    17   MR. RAMPTON:  Yes, I agree with that.
    18
    19   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  It refers to the leaflet and then lies, and
    20        the leaflet, let us assume, does not deal with CFCs and
    21        HCFCs or damage to the ozone layer, and the press release
    22        does not mention damage to the ozone layer.
    23
    24   MR. MORRIS:  It does.
    25
    26   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  The leaflet to our customers again refers to
    27        the leaflet and lies in the leaflet, let us assume, and
    28        does not, itself, refer to CFCs or HCFCs or ozone layer, so
    29        I can understand you would say, look, it only refers to
    30        what is in the leaflet, it only says what is in the leaflet
    31        is lies and the leaflet does not say anything about the
    32        ozone layer or HCFCs or CFCs.  The Background Briefing on
    33        its first and third pages refers to lies in the leaflet.
    34        So, ditto, so far, the press release and the leaflet to
    35        customers.  But page 2 of the Background Briefing.
    36
    37   MR. RAMPTON:  Sorry, I just got it.
    38
    39   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes.  Page 2 of the Background Briefing
    40        states that -- I think it is near the top without turning
    41        it up again, I was looking at it again yesterday.
    42
    43   MR. RAMPTON:  Yes, it does.
    44
    45   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  It refers, "The leaflet states that
    46        McDonald's... (dot dot dot dot) damages the ozone layer".
    47
    48   MR. RAMPTON:  Somebody has got in a muddle.
    49
    50   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  In fact, at the moment I do not think it 
    51        does, but that is what the Background Briefing says the 
    52        leaflet states, and it goes on to say, I think a little 
    53        lower down, that CFCs were removed immediately in line with
    54        the Montreal protocol.  Query, therefore, that the net
    55        effect of the Background Briefing in distinction from the
    56        original press release and the leaflet to customers means
    57        that McDonald's have lied by saying that the Defendants
    58        have lied by saying that McDonald's damages the ozone
    59        layer.  In fact, what has happened, it may well be, is that
    60        someone has, in saying that the leaflet says that

Prev Next Index