Day 307 - 27 Nov 96 - Page 08

     
     1        Plaintiff accepts that the leaflet concerned was published
     2        to a number of customers", they say being at least eight.
     3        I am not quite sure how they know about those eight.  I do
     4        not think they have said.
     5
     6   MR. JUSTICE BELL:   No.  I do not think you need worry about
     7        that too much because I am obviously likely to infer that
     8        far more than that did end up in the hands of customers.
     9
    10   MS. STEEL:   Yes.  Then in the fourth paragraph of that pleading
    11        they say:  "The Second Plaintiff accepts that the leaflet
    12        concerned came to the attention of such customers either as
    13        a result of the customers specifically inquiring about the
    14        main action or as a result of the leaflet being placed on
    15        view to customers in the restaurant, whether in the
    16        'did-you-know' board or elsewhere in the restaurant."
    17
    18        So that is, effectively, the admission that the "Why
    19        McDonald's is going to court" leaflet was published
    20        throughout this country.  It should be noted that it was
         not just published to members of the public, as they have
    22        admitted there, because they had to send it to all the
    23        stores and, therefore, all the managers in the stores.  It
    24        has been published to them as well.
    25
    26        Then, in relation to the pleading in the counterclaim which
    27        appears at paragraph 16, and this, you may remember, you
    28        gave us leave to amend on 8th July 1996, so that it now
    29        reads:  "During May 1994, and since then, the Second
    30        Plaintiff published or caused to be published and has
    31        continued to publish and caused to be published within the
    32        jurisdiction of this Honourable Court a document entitled
    33        'Libel Action Background Briefing', which contains the
    34        words 'defamatory of the Defendants'", and then the words
    35        are set out.
    36
    37        In relation to that pleading, McDonald's have admitted in
    38        paragraph 5 of their defence to counterclaim:  "It is
    39        admitted and averred that during May 1994 the Second
    40        Plaintiff published or caused to be published to certain
         journalists on inquiry within the jurisdiction of this
    42        Honourable Court a document entitled 'Libel Action
    43        Background Briefing' containing the words set out in
    44        paragraph 16 of the counterclaim, to the whole of which
    45        document the Plaintiffs will refer at trial."
    46
    47        Then, in the further and better particulars of the defence
    48        to counterclaim dated 15th July 1994, they identify the
    49        journalists who this press release was sent to and there
    50        are some twenty journalists on that list from various 
    51        national newspapers and some local newspapers, various 
    52        television and radio stations in the UK and, indeed, some 
    53        press agencies which cover other parts of the world as
    54        well.  But it was published in this country.  Obviously,
    55        there is evidence that they have continued to publish the
    56        same Background Briefing since the date of this pleading on
    57        several occasions.  In fact, they were still publishing it
    58        at the time Mr. Preston was in the witness box.
    59
    60        Moving on through the defence to counterclaim -- no, sorry,