Day 307 - 27 Nov 96 - Page 09

     
     1        before I say that.  So, effectively, in terms of what we
     2        are obliged to prove, McDonald's have admitted publication
     3        and, therefore, we do not have to prove anything.  They
     4        have admitted publication of these documents.  We would say
     5        that it is quite clear from the content of those documents
     6        they are a vicious and unwarranted attack on myself,
     7        Mr. Morris and other critics of McDonald's, and we consider
     8        that it is disgusting that a company which spends 1.8
     9        billion dollars every year on promoting its own views and
    10        its own image can issue such a vicious slur on people who
    11        are simply seeking to put alternative points of view about
    12        the Corporation's practices and about the way society is
    13        run.
    14
    15        Going back to the defence to counterclaim in paragraph 6,
    16        well, I did not really understand this.  There is
    17        paragraph 6 which says:  "It is denied that the words set
    18        out in paragraph 13 and/or 14 and/or 16 of the counterclaim
    19        in their natural and ordinary meaning bore or were
    20        understood to bear the meanings pleaded at paragraph 17 of
         the counterclaim", which were our pleaded meanings.  Then
    22        they say:  "In the alternative the said words set out in
    23        paragraph 13 and/or 14 and/or 16 of the counterclaim are
    24        true in substance and in fact in the following meanings,
    25        namely that the Defendants...", and then they set out the
    26        meanings.
    27
    28        What I do not understand about that is that the first one
    29        says, "It is denied that the words bore the meanings" that
    30        we pleaded, but the second one seems to say the same by
    31        setting out alternative meanings, yet it says "in the
    32        alternative".  So, I did not really understand how 7 was an
    33        alternative to 6.
    34
    35   MR. JUSTICE BELL:   It is just because the law, as I understand
    36        it, is that you have to plead the meaning which you would
    37        seek to justify as opposed strictly what the actual meaning
    38        is.  In most cases, I would guess, it comes down to exactly
    39        the same thing.  If I am right, Mr. Rampton ---
    40
    MR. RAMPTON:   That is right, your Lordship.
    42
    43   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  -- the authorities fell short of saying, at
    44        one time, as I understand it, you were not allowed to plead
    45        the meaning.
    46
    47   MR. RAMPTON:   We thought we were not.
    48
    49   MR. JUSTICE BELL:   Then there was a case which said you should
    50        plead the meaning which you seek to justify.  What it did 
    51        not do is just say, in terms, "You must plead what you say 
    52        the meaning is".  If I have it right, to most people it is 
    53        a distinction without a difference.  In most cases it is.
    54        But you need not worry about that.  What it boils down to
    55        is this:  They do not accept your meaning, although there
    56        may be precious little difference at the end of the day.
    57        Then they say, "It means what we have said in paragraph 7
    58        and it is true in those meanings".
    59
    60   MS. STEEL:   Right.  Maybe it is just because they are mixed in