Day 310 - 04 Dec 96 - Page 04

     
     1        or more of the serious allegations, the true stings of the
     2        leaflet, were found to be true.  It might go so far as to
     3        establish a defence under section 5, if a sufficient
     4        proportion of the serious stings were proved to be true.
     5
     6   MR. JUSTICE BELL:   Yes.  The other matter, though, in relation
     7        to damage to the ozone layer, CFCs, HCFCs, et cetera, is
     8        that in 4E, meaning 4E, admittedly the words start with,
     9        "are through their said conduct contributing to a major
    10        ecological catastrophe", but does that not bring in an
    11        allegation that was a general sting that McDonald's are
    12        contributing to a major catastrophe?
    13
    14   MR. RAMPTON:   No.  I mean, do give the pleader this credit.
    15        Those words are carefully chosen, as they always are in
    16        defamation actions, for that very reason.  If one makes a
    17        general complaint which goes beyond the actual meaning of
    18        the words, then, under Nazeem(?) v. Financial Times, the
    19        defendant is entitled to pick up the (inaudible).  That is
    20        what happens to the poor old plaintiff who, in that case,
         did not define his complaint; he made a general complaint,
    22        I forget what about, I think it was dishonesty in business,
    23        and that opened the door.  Here, the pleader has been very
    24        careful to confine the inference about major ecological
    25        catastrophe, the words taken from the leaflet, to the
    26        conduct described in A, B, C and D.  What is more, there is
    27        a qualification even in E to major ecological catastrophe,
    28        starting with the words "forcing the tribal people..." and
    29        so on and so forth.
    30
    31   MR. JUSTICE BELL:   Amongst the slightly more detailed points,
    32        on pages 9 and 10, it is paragraphs (2) and (3) in the
    33        brackets, there is the wherewithal, you say, for the
    34        comparison table, table 3.  Now, I have not actually got
    35        those documents out and checked them, but I wonder if we
    36        might take a minute or two now, so that you can explain
    37        it?  They are pink 4 and pink 5.
    38
    39   MR. RAMPTON:   Yes, may I just get them.  (Pause).
    40
    MR. JUSTICE BELL:   Yes.  It just takes the figures from each of
    42        the two columns.
    43
    44   MR. RAMPTON:   That is right, it does.
    45
    46   MR. JUSTICE BELL:   Does it do any more than that?
    47
    48   MR. RAMPTON:   No, it does not.  I have not made any additional
    49        calculations at all.  I just put them side by side for
    50        convenience, that is all. 
    51 
    52   MR. MORRIS:   Are we looking at page 274? 
    53
    54   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes.  274 of one bundle and 728 of the other.
    55
    56   MR. RAMPTON:   The only thing I regret about 274, figure 4.1, is
    57        your Lordship's observation about the fact that they do not
    58        add up to a hundred percent and this was never resolved.
    59
    60   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  No.