Day 177 - 26 Oct 95 - Page 15

     
     1   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  The only reason I say that is that I already
     2        have one or two documents behind Mr. Pearson's statement,
     3        and I either put these with those or those in -----
     4
     5   MR. MORRIS:  That is fine behind his statement.
     6
     7   MR. RAMPTON:  There is only one other thing I ought to say about
     8        scheduling generally.  Given that there are, I think, 10 of
     9        the Defendants' witnesses who have not yet been
    10        scheduled -- I think I have counted it correctly -- and
    11        given also that it is likely that the Bath issue will take
    12        the best part of two weeks, it may be that we will not even
    13        finish employment this term, in which case, if
    14        your Lordship thinks it is all right to do so, we will take
    15        a somewhat cautious view about when we ask Mr. Chester to
    16        come over.
    17
    18   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  What I would like you to do is mention what
    19        you have in mind at some stage not too far into the future.
    20
    MR. RAMPTON:  We will.  We will get in touch with him and find
    22        out what is convenient to him.
    23
    24   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  The only thing I wanted to say, really as the
    25        initiation of the argument about meaning so far as
    26        nutrition is concerned, is that on re-reading
    27        Skuse v. Granada TV in divider 1 of your very helpful
    28        bundle of authorities, in that case, Otton J. ordered that
    29        the preliminary issue to be determined was whether the
    30        words complained of are defamatory of the Plaintiff and, if
    31        so, whether they bear the defamatory meaning complained of
    32        by the Plaintiff or some lesser defamatory meaning and, if
    33        so, what; and it occurred to me that that is the issue
    34        which I ought to be determining now in relation to
    35        nutrition.  I hinted at it when, a few days ago, I said
    36        that "the meaning", and then corrected myself to say "the
    37        defamatory meaning", if any.  I do not think it takes
    38        anyone by surprise.  It does not really expand the argument
    39        in any way.  It is just that if anyone wanted to say, for
    40        instance, that any part of the meaning which you bat for or
         Ms. Steel and Mr. Morris bats for would not be defamatory
    42        of McDonald's anyway -- for instance, if they wanted to
    43        argue that an allegation of selling food of a certain kind
    44        was not defamatory -- then they could present that argument
    45        during the course of today.
    46
    47   MR. RAMPTON:  Without more, it plainly would not be.  I say
    48        "plainly would not be"; in those circumstances, it would
    49        not be.
    50 
    51   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  No.   I mean, you come to that in your own 
    52        time.  What I might like some help on, I thought it might 
    53        be argued for instance that to sell wine of indifferent
    54        quality, knowing it is of indifferent quality, may not be
    55        too defamatory, but to sell food knowing that it either
    56        causes a serious, perhaps potentially fatal, disease, or
    57        that it may give rise to a risk of a potentially fatal
    58        disease, may be another matter.
    59
    60   MR. RAMPTON:  Plainly,  on the authorities, the answer to that