Day 307 - 27 Nov 96 - Page 14

     
     1
     2   MS. STEEL:   I think a mere lawyer does not, but the point is an
     3        ordinary member of the public does.
     4
     5   MR. JUSTICE BELL:   I think an ordinary member of the public
     6        would think they are all the same thing.
     7
     8   MS. STEEL:   The point is, an ordinary member of the public
     9        would read the press release to be saying that we,
    10        personally, were distributing it and, therefore, it must be
    11        up to McDonald's to prove that we personally were
    12        distributing it.
    13
    14   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I do not think it is any more serious that
    15        you actually hand it out or cause it or procure it or be
    16        party to it in some way.  It is all the same thing, at the
    17        end of the day.
    18
    19   MS. STEEL:   But that is not a question of meaning.  The
    20        question is:  What meaning would the ordinary member of the
         public take from this press release?  They would take the
    22        meaning that we, personally, had distributed it.
    23
    24   MR. JUSTICE BELL:   Yes.  I am not sure I agree with you about
    25        that.  But I do not think it makes any difference at the
    26        end of the day.
    27
    28   MS. STEEL:   In any event, the effect of that is, we say, that
    29        the Plaintiffs' meaning (a) is not the natural and ordinary
    30        meaning of the press releases and leaflets for the reason
    31        that it includes recklessness and because it is not solely
    32        about distribution or publication by ourselves.
    33
    34   MR. RAMPTON:  I wonder if I might say something at this stage?
    35        I think the case your Lordship was referring to was
    36        Lucas Box.  The effect of that is that the so-called
    37        meaning which the Defendant, or, in this case, Defendant to
    38        counterclaim, pleads is the sense in which he says that the
    39        sting or charge made by the words complained of is true.
    40
    MR. JUSTICE BELL:   Yes.
    42
    43   MR. RAMPTON:   He does not plead what he says the ordinary
    44        person would necessarily infer.
    45
    46   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  At the end of the day, I do not think it
    47        makes any difference, does it, so far as the case is
    48        concerned?
    49
    50   MR. RAMPTON:   No.  I mean, if the sting which the defendant is 
    51        able to justify is sufficient to meet the charge conveyed 
    52        by the words complained of, that is a sufficient defence, 
    53        though it may not have the same literal meaning as the
    54        original words.
    55
    56   MS. STEEL:   I understand that, but the point is that we are
    57        currently arguing about what the meaning is of the
    58        leaflet.  I mean, the point is, the meaning is that we
    59        distributed the leaflet.  If the Plaintiffs then want to
    60        try and justify that by saying it does not really matter