Day 313 - 13 Dec 96 - Page 20
1 when they served their defence to our counterclaim which
2 recognised that the allegation that they had made was
3 untrue. The reference for that is to look at the Defence
4 to Counterclaim, page 3, paragraph C.
5
6 I mean, as far as we are concerned they should not have
7 printed it in the first place, but certainly when they got
8 the counterclaim they must have become aware that it was
9 untrue and, even if they were so... I do not know, just so
10 decided they do not want to believe anything that we say in
11 our pleadings, when they replied on 20th June 1994 with
12 pleadings that we had deliberately ignored letters sent by
13 McDonald's solicitors in 1984 and 1990, they must have
14 known at that stage that they could not sustain the
15 allegation in their press releases and leaflets that we had
16 deliberately ignored several letters sent between 1984 and
17 1990 about the fact sheet.
18
19 Even if they were not aware of it then, then it could not
20 have got any more explicit in the Further and Better
21 Particulars of the reply to the Defence to Counterclaim
22 which we served where they had asked us what we were
23 relying on in relation to the allegation that they
24 published the said words knowing them to be untrue and/or
25 being reckless as to their truth or falsity. And on page 2
26 of that document at paragraph (v) we said in respect of
27 meaning (C), "The second Plaintiff is fully aware that
28 prior to service of the writs in the main action neither
29 they nor solicitors acting on their behalf had ever written
30 to London Greenpeace (nor to individuals involved with the
31 group) stating that the Company considered the fact sheet
32 to be defamatory, or requesting that the group ceased
33 distribution of the fact sheet." So, it is really
34 completely spelt out there if it had not been already.
35
36 Then, finally, they could have stopped distribution of
37 these libelous press releases and leaflets from 8th March
38 1996 when Paul Preston signed his statement admitting that
39 this allegation that they had made in their press releases
40 and leaflets was untrue. But no, they continued to
41 distribute the press releases and leaflets. We would say
42 that the fact they have not bothered to withdraw this
43 libelous statement, for which there is categoric proof that
44 they were fully aware it was false, shows their state of
45 mind towards myself and Mr. Morris, i.e. that they have an
46 overriding desire to discredit us regardless of the truth.
47
48 I think, particularly in relation to that point, the
49 reference on day 246, page 17, where we were asking
50 Mr. Paul Preston, President of McDonald's UK: "Does that
51 not concern you that you have not immediately recalled all
52 those leaflets and told the Communications Department that
53 they must not send out that press release because it is
54 incorrect?" He recognises that the press release is
55 incorrect, and he said, "Yes, I am concerned by it." and
56 then he was asked, "But you are not concerned enough to
57 actually do something to stop the dissemination of false
58 information by McDonald's?" and he answers, "Not at
59 present, no".
60
