Day 163 - 25 Sep 95 - Page 08

     
     1        could you argue that on the evidence so far, the evidence
     2        of McDonald's own executives included, that is clearly
     3        justified?
     4
     5   MR. MORRIS:  We would submit the Plaintiffs have circulated
     6        themselves, as admitted by Mr. Beavers and Preston, to
     7        representatives of the Plaintiffs, they have circulated
     8        material, information (and are happy to circulate
     9        information) which identifies the links between diet and
    10        ill-health, in fact, causal links between diet and
    11        ill-health -- the London Greenpeace leaflet makes a
    12        similar, if anything, less strong point.
    13
    14        I was going to refer you, for example, to Mr. Beavers who
    15        could not see any difference between the central passage
    16        that we are arguing about in our leaflet and their own
    17        document, which was also a document about McDonald's food.
    18        It is clear they say the same thing and, if anything, the
    19        McDonald's statement is stronger than the statement in the
    20        London Greenpeace leaflet.
    21
    22        So it just seems to us there must be some method of
    23        identifying whether it is necessary to continue with all
    24        the further evidence, evaluation of the evidence, the time
    25        spent in closing speeches and whatever, and there should be
    26        no need for any further evidence if the question comes down
    27        to an argument over meaning, so be it.  Maybe that argument
    28        should happen at this stage before any further evidence is
    29        considered or evaluated.
    30
    31        So we would be prepared to have the argument over the
    32        meaning and what exactly is in dispute over the meaning
    33        (which we would say is very little) as soon as possible,
    34        but if that was the way we would want to go, then we would
    35        want to prepare.
    36
    37   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Do you want to say anything on this
    38        application so far, Ms. Steel?
    39
    40   MS. STEEL:   No.
    41
    42   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes, Mr. Rampton?
    43
    44   MR. RAMPTON:  My Lord, I pick that up, if I may, at what your
    45        Lordship proposed was the possible meaning.  It is page 7,
    46        line 40: "If it means something like McDonald's food is
    47        unhealthy" -- I dare say your Lordship has taken that from
    48        the subheading of part of the leaflet -- "because eating it
    49        may well make your diet high in fat, sugar and/or animal
    50        fat, salt (sodium) and low in fibre, vitamins and minerals, 
    51        with a very real risk you will suffer cancer or heart 
    52        disease". 
    53
    54        If that is, for example, the meaning -- it is not quite as
    55        stark as the meaning for which your Lordship has already
    56        given leave in the amended Statement of Claim -- if that or
    57        something like it your Lordship were to find were the true
    58        meaning, why then, there would be, so it seems on the
    59        evidence presently, probably no defence to the nutritional
    60        claim at all.