Day 310 - 04 Dec 96 - Page 02

     
     1                                      Wednesday, 4th December 1996
     2
     3        Plaintiffs' Closing Speech, continued:
     4
     5   MR. MORRIS:   Can I just say that I typed up the amendment to
     6        the defence and counterclaim.   Shall I hand it in now?
     7
     8   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Has Mr. Rampton had a copy?
     9
    10   MR. MORRIS:   No, I am just about to hand it over.
    11
    12   MR. JUSTICE BELL:   What I suggest we do, I will go on dealing
    13        with the queries I have remaining on recycling and waste
    14        and employment, and then we may come back and I will look
    15        at that.
    16
    17   MS. STEEL:   It does not contain any additional pleading.  It is
    18        just additional words complained of.
    19
    20   MR. JUSTICE BELL:   Yes, very well.  What I did not check is
    21        whether your particulars of the meaning, defamatory
    22        meaning, need any addition to or alteration, but you can
    23        think about that as the morning progresses and we will come
    24        to it later.
    25
    26        Just so that I make sure I understand, so far as environment/index.html">litter is
    27        concerned, I think you deal with it on page 17, divider 1
    28        of volume 3, Mr. Rampton?
    29
    30   MR. RAMPTON:   Yes, my Lord.
    31
    32   MR. JUSTICE BELL:   Does it boil down to this, that really the
    33        common sting with destruction of trees and non-recycling,
    34        or the overall area, is wastage of natural resources, and
    35        any environment/index.html">litter problem is a different problem completely?
    36
    37   MR. RAMPTON:   I would certainly submit so.  I started, really,
    38        with the thought of Lord Morris of Borth-y-Guest in Jones
    39        v. Skelton, that one must reject meanings which are arrived
    40        at by force or unnatural interpretation.  I have put aside
         citing that authority.  If one takes that as one's guide
    42        and, in parallel with that, the question of how an ordinary
    43        person would look at the sting of it, he would not, we
    44        submit, see environment/index.html">litter as giving rise to a sting which was
    45        common with the sting about rainforests and about recycling
    46        at all.  Except for the fact that environment/index.html">litter is mentioned in
    47        the leaflet, it is no closer to the sting of the
    48        allegations in the leaflet of which complaint is made; that
    49        is, for example, methane or CFCs.  CFCs arguably come a
    50        little closer than environment/index.html">litter does. 
    51 
    52   MR. JUSTICE BELL:   Yes.  If I had heard evidence about CFCs and 
    53        HCFCs and environment/index.html">litter and if any of the criticisms levied at
    54        McDonald's in those respects are well made, can they
    55        legitimately go to assessment of damages?
    56
    57   MR. RAMPTON:   No, my Lord, they cannot, because unless they are
    58        legitimately before the court as a matter of justification
    59        of sting, which is to be found in the words of which the
    60        Plaintiffs complain, then they fall foul of the rule that