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

Prev Next Index