Day 294 - 05 Nov 96 - Page 03

     
     1        also the counterclaim point that the -----
     2
     3   MR. JUSTICE BELL:   I have your counterclaim point.  Even if I
     4        say it is not relevant to the Plaintiffs' claim for libel
     5        arising out of what is contained in the leaflet, you say it
     6        is relevant to your counterclaim because you say the
     7        allegation is that you are lying in the respect set out in
     8        the counterclaim, and so on.
     9
    10   MR. MORRIS:   Yes.
    11
    12   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I have that point.
    13
    14   MR. MORRIS:   The reason I looked at that again was because on
    15        the forest area point that if, as we believe, we have
    16        demonstrated you agree that plantation forests are
    17        ecologically damaging to the environment when compared to
    18        natural forests, then that would be a point which we would
    19        certainly pray in aid of the counterclaim matter, whether
    20        or not you felt that was the specific reference in the fact
         sheet, specific interpretation of the fact sheet, because
    22        it is related to their packaging using packaging without
    23        concern for the environment.  And we would specifically say
    24        that the fact that all their witnesses stated that
    25        McDonald's had no policy on the use of paper, sources of
    26        paper, would demonstrate their lack of concern for the
    27        environment of their paper packaging; that is one of the
    28        considerations.  That would indicate whether they had
    29        concern or not.  So I think I have dealt with that.
    30
    31   MR. JUSTICE BELL:   Yes.
    32
    33   MR. MORRIS:   The other thing was, I did say this before, but
    34        there are various levels of collective responsibility that
    35        McDonald's must take for the effects of their packaging on
    36        the environment.  Not just their own pure usage, but the
    37        fact that they obviously use their packaging as
    38        promotional, for a promotional purpose -- arguably solely
    39        for a promotional purpose, but certainly that is part of
    40        it -- and that other companies, as they are the market
         leader and their packaging is used in their advertising,
    42        whatever, that the rise of the fast food industry, as we
    43        have heard from Professor Ashworth which had been a major
    44        contribution to, for example, the environment/index.html">litter problem, but that
    45        would also be a major factor in the increased general
    46        environmental damage associated with packaging materials,
    47        production and disposal, that they have to accept a general
    48        collective responsibility for effectively promoting that
    49        kind of take away, that kind of disposal packaging, what
    50        they call the McDonald's experience, which other companies
    51        of course, in order to keep up, have to adopt.
    52
    53        The final couple of points.  I don't know if I said in my
    54        submissions on this, but something that certainly came up
    55        in the hearing, the case in general, was the sheer
    56        wastefulness of the nature of the packaging.  Just the
    57        sheer fact that it only has a life of five or -----
    58
    59   MR. JUSTICE BELL:   You said it was all this packaging for a few
    60        seconds' use.