Day 072 - 12 Jan 95 - Page 12

     
     1        witnesses about noise and smells and parking problems, or
     2        whatever, from McDonald's.  It is part of a problem and it
     3        is part of the perceived -- in this particular matter, it
     4        is part of the formula to be able to judge what exactly the
     5        disputes were around that restaurant, and to help us to
     6        judge as it is now contested somebody is lying or somebody
     7        is being extremely economical with the truth and we need to
     8        know about the whole issue.  You cannot just separate out
     9        the main point which is the environment/index.html">litter ---
    10
    11   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  But can you -----
    12
    13   MR. MORRIS:  -- although it is not in the leaflet ----
    14
    15   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  No, just listen to me for a moment because
    16        I am giving you the opportunity to help yourself, if you
    17        can.  One thing we cannot get away from is this, for better
    18        or worse, is a defamation case about a leaflet which we
    19        have all read several times over.  You have a counterclaim
    20        so there is an issue about -- just putting it in very
         general terms, non-specific terms -- your good faith in
    22        playing a part in the publication of that leaflet, if, in
    23        fact, you did play any part in it.  We have to keep our eye
    24        on that ball.
    25
    26        This, for better or worse, is not a general enquiry into
    27        whether McDonald's conduct themselves well or less than
    28        well in respects other than those raised in the leaflet.
    29        That is right, is it not?
    30
    31   MR. MORRIS:  It is right, but there are -- the attitude of
    32        McDonald's is raised in the leaflets.  Their corporate
    33        attitude, their image consciousness, their motivations,
    34        such as profit or whatever, is an underlying dispute in
    35        this case.  It is in the Fact Sheet and it goes to the
    36        specific pleaded points and it does continually come up
    37        throughout this case.
    38
    39        I am not saying, therefore, every single thing we can think
    40        of about McDonald's desire for profit or image becomes a
         major issue in the case.  In fact, when Mr. Rampton said
    42        that "Mr. Morris wanted an opportunity to go down every
    43        blind alley", the point is that you have exercised your
    44        power there, if you felt cross-examination was completely
    45        irrelevant, to say:  "Well, finish off on that", or
    46        whatever.  It is not up to the Plaintiffs to prevent the
    47        Defence from having material which may be reasonably said
    48        to relate to the matters, which includes the attitude of
    49        McDonald's which is in the Fact Sheet and their image and
    50        all those matters which colours the substantive issues 
    51        which we are concentrating on. 
    52 
    53        We are concentrating on environment/index.html">litter but in order to know whether
    54        the environment/index.html">litter issue is taken seriously by McDonald's, we have
    55        to know details of this dispute which has now come to
    56        represent this issue.
    57
    58        So, that is what I have to say on that.  I think there is a
    59        dangerous slippery slope here which has been, if I can mix
    60        my metaphors, a door has been pushed open in the Court of