Day 294 - 05 Nov 96 - Page 02
1 Tuesday, 5th November 1996
2
3 MR. MORRIS: I know Helen is working on advertising. Oh, here
4 she is, talk of the devil. (Pause) Before I move on to
5 food safety and food poisoning, just looking back over the
6 packaging issue, some additional points. I wanted to just
7 re-emphasise the claim in the McDonald's press release that
8 was the subject of the counterclaim, that it is a lie when
9 the fact sheet says "McDonald's uses large volumes of
10 paper/packaging without concern for the environment."
11 I want to emphasise the attack that makes on us for
12 criticising their use of packaging in general without
13 concern for the environment, and therefore our need to put
14 up a case about how their packaging in general, and paper
15 in general, does, contrary to what they say, damage the
16 environment, and that McDonald's has to prove that it does
17 not damage the environment, or whatever.
18
19 So that is important in terms of Mr. Rampton argues that
20 certain points are not specifically mentioned in the fact
21 sheet. It is, or he would claim still, that anything to do
22 with their impact of their packaging on the environment
23 would be relevant to the counter claim. As I said, the
24 press release did not contain the fact sheet.
25
26 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes, I remember making that point.
27
28 MR. MORRIS: Yes. So the defamatory meaning has to be based
29 upon, or their press release has to be based upon, what
30 people themselves read when they read their press release.
31
32 But in addition to that, just to say that there is a
33 general charge in the fact sheet about McDonald's and many
34 other corporations contributing to a major ecological
35 catastrophe.
36
37 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes.
38
39 MR. MORRIS: And that is right. After the section
40 'parenthesis' about packaging, but it is obviously a
41 general charge which -----
42
43 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes. The issue there is whether I see that
44 as the general charge in itself or a general charge which
45 is related to destruction of the rainforests. That is,
46 whether the contributing to a major ecological catastrophe
47 has to be taken in the context of rainforest destruction or
48 can be taken in a wider context.
49
50 MR. MORRIS: Right. Well, we would say -----
51
52 MR. JUSTICE BELL: That is the way I see it at the moment,
53 anyway.
54
55 MR. MORRIS: We would say that because the material in
56 parenthesis is slotted into that section it must relate to
57 general contribution, not specifically about tropical
58 forest but specific contribution to a major ecological
59 catastrophe, to that general charge. So that is that
60 point. In which case, either that point, but certainly