Day 310 - 04 Dec 96 - Page 06

     
     1        I thought a slightly different approach might be refreshing
     2        as well as helpful -- the words in the text which I submit
     3        are the key words in the defamation.  When one gets to (6)
     4        at the top of page 2 I have not underlined any of the
     5        words.  So, if I may give a cautious answer, the answer to
     6        your Lordship's question is probably, no, it does not
     7        matter very much.
     8
     9   MR. MORRIS:   Sorry, which one was that?
    10
    11   MR. JUSTICE BELL:   It is 4-0.
    12
    13   MR. MORRIS:   Right.
    14
    15   MR. RAMPTON:   As a specific defamation, it probably does not
    16        add very much; if, indeed, it is.
    17
    18   MR. JUSTICE BELL:   My next question was whether it was
    19        defamatory, in fact?
    20
    MR. RAMPTON:   There are many people who might not think that it
    22        was, is all I will say about that.  It is the progress of
    23        conduct which leads to that result which is where the true
    24        defamation lies.
    25
    26   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Since Mr. Morris has, on a number of
    27        occasions, mentioned the Derbyshire case, having looked at
    28        that, there is one way in which it may advance on what I
    29        said about what matters are defamatory of a company, and so
    30        on, because he clearly -- I will hear anything Mr. Morris
    31        or Ms. Steel wants to say in due course -- was saying that
    32        a trading corporation, and clearly both the First and
    33        Second Plaintiffs are trading corporations, is entitled to
    34        sue in defamatory matters which can be seen as having a
    35        tendency to damage it in the way of its business.  He gave
    36        examples, and the first example is matters that go to
    37        credit such as might deter banks from lending to it.  That
    38        may be by the way.  But the next was the conditions
    39        experienced by its employees.
    40
    MR. RAMPTON:   Yes.
    42
    43   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  And he went on, "... which might impede the
    44        recruitment of the best qualified workers".
    45
    46   MR. RAMPTON:   Absolutely.
    47
    48   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Then he went on, "... or make people
    49        reluctant to deal with it".
    50 
    51   MR. RAMPTON:   Yes, that would obviously be right.  Obviously, 
    52        I would submit that in the context of this leaflet the main 
    53        thrust of the attack is on McDonald's, the way in which
    54        McDonald's are supposed to treat their employees.  That has
    55        the direct effect if the leaflet has a wide circulation and
    56        it is going to inhibit recruitment.  That is obvious.  It
    57        may also demoralise people who are already working for the
    58        company.  Equally, however, right-minded customers of the
    59        Plaintiffs -- on seeing how it is that behind the scenes,
    60        as it were, McDonald's improperly exploit their workforce