IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE 1990-M-NO.5724

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION


BETWEEN:

(1) MCDONALD'S CORPORATION
(2) MCDONALD'S RESTAURANTS LTD.

Plaintiffs

- and -

(1) HELEN MARIE STEEL
(2) DAVID MORRIS

Defendants


DEFENCE TO COUNTERCLAIM


1. The Second Plaintiff does not plead to Paragraph 12 of the Counterclaim.

2. It is admitted and averred that on 14th March 1994 the Second Plaintiff published or caused to be published within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court a press release to certain News Editors entitled "McDonald's Restaurants and London Greenpeace" containing the words set out in Paragraph 13 of the Counterclaim, to the whole of which press release the Plaintiffs will refer at trial.

3. It is admitted and averred that during April and May 1994 the Second Plaintiff published or caused to be published to certain customers within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court in the form of a leaflet the words set out in Paragraph 14 of the Counterclaim.

4. Paragraph 15 of the Counterclaim is admitted.

5. It is admitted and averred that during May 1994 the Second Plaintiff published or caused to be published to certain journalists on enquiry within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court a document entitled Libel Action, Background Briefing' containing the words set out in Paragraph 16 of the Counterclaim, to the whole of which document the Plaintiffs will refer at trial.

6. It is denied that the words set out in Paragraph 13 and/or 14 and/or 16 of the Counterclaim in their natural and ordinary meaning bore or were understood to bear the meanings pleaded at Paragraph 17 of the Counterclaim.

7. In the alternative, the said words set out in Paragraph 13 and/or 14 and/or 16 of the Counterclaim are true in substance and in fact in the following meanings, namely that the Defendants (a) have intentionally or recklessly published or caused to be published or been party to or procured the publication of numerous false statements about McDonald' s

(b) have published or caused to be published or been party to or procured the distribution and publication of a leaflet called "What's Wrong with McDonald's" and other material containing allegations to the same or similar effect knowing the contents to be untrue and/or being reckless as to their truth or falsity

(c) have, as members and representatives of London Greenpeace, deliberately ignored letters sent by McDonald's solicitors in 1984 and 1990 advising them that the leaflet "What's Wrong with McDonald's" (referred to in Paragraph 3 of the Statement of Claim) contained numerous allegations which were false and defamatory; and have, despite these letters, continued to publish or cause to be published or been party to or procured the publication of the said leaflet and other material containing allegations to the same or similar effect and have thereby spread or caused or been party to or procured the spreading of lies

(d) are deliberately or recklessly deceiving and intend to continue so to deceive the public when they know full well that the contents of the said leaflet and - 4 - other material are untrue and/or are reckless as to their truth or falsity

(e) have thereby improperly caused concern to McDonald's staff, customers, suppliers and thousands of independent franchisees


(f) have made false claims as to their involvement in a persistent campaign against McDonald's by denying that they have for many years taken prominent roles therein. If necessary, the Second Plaintiff will rely upon the provisions of Section 5 of the Defamation Act 1952.


PARTICULARS
(1) The following pleadings in the main action are here repeated:
(2) Reference is here made to a Chronology of Information sent by the Plaintiffs to the Defendants, which is appended hereto marked "Appendix 1".

(3) Notwithstanding the fact that they have never had any or any substantial evidence to support the allegations made in the leaflet "What's Wrong with McDonald's" (referred to in Paragraph 3 of the Statement of Claim) or any of the other material , and despite the lack of any or any substantial support for the said allegations in the evidence served in the main action by way of discovery and witness statements on behalf of both the Plaintiffs and Defendants, the Defendants since the institution of proceedings (i) have continued to distribute and thereby publish leaflets entitled "What's Wrong with McDonald's" being shorter versions of the leaflet complained of at Paragraph 3 of the Statement of Claim. The relevant particulars of distribution and publication of the leaflets concerned are contained in the Further and Better Particulars of the Further and Better Particulars of the Reply served pursuant to an Order dated 16th December 1993 and the Voluntary Particulars and the file of relevant leaflets served therewith.

(ii) have, it is to be inferred, caused to be published or been party to or procured the publication of material in furtherance of a campaign of support for the Defendants in defending the main action called "The McLibel Support Campaign" (copies of which are appended hereto in a file marked - 7 "Appendix 2 - McLibel File") which have repeated allegations to the same or similar effect as those complained of and/or have expressly or by implication asserted the truth of the allegations complained of and/or have emphasised the need for the publication of the allegations complained of to continue.

(iii) have, it is to be inferred, caused or been party to or procured the publication of material by the media and of Early Day Motions in the House of Commons (copies or transcripts of which are included in a file marked "Appendix 3 - Media and Early Day Motion File appended hereto) which have repeated allegations to the same or similar effect as those complained of and/or have expressly or by implication asserted the truth of the allegations complained of.


(iv) have, it is to be inferred, caused or been party to or procured the publication through an accessible computer base of a posting entitled "What's Wrong with McDonald's" containing allegations to the same or similar effect as thoses complained - 8 - of together with a request that the same be printed and distributed by the receiver (the posting is appended hereto marked "Appendix 4").
(4) In the premises the Defendants (i) have intentionally or recklessly published or caused to be published or been party to or procured the publication of numerous false statements about McDonald's (that is to say, allegations to the same or similar effect as those complained of and/or of express or implied assertions to the effect that the allegations complained of are true)

(ii) have published or caused to be published or been party to or procured the distribution of a leaflet called "What's Wrong with McDonald's" (referred to at Paragraph 3 of the Statement of Claim) and other material containing allegations to the same or similar effect knowing them to be untrue and/or being reckless as to their truth or falsity


(iii) are deliberately or recklessly deceiving - 9 and intend to continue so to deceive the public when they know full well that the contents of the said leaflet and other material are untrue and/or are reckless as to their truth or falsity.
(5) The Defendants have, as members and representatives of London Greenpeace, deliberately ignored several letters sent by McDonald's solicitors since 1984 advising them that the leaflet "What's Wrong with McDonald's" (referred to at Paragraph 3 of the Statement of Claim) was defamatory and have, despite these letters, continued to publish or cause to be published or been party to or procured the distribution and publication of the said leaflet and other material containing allegations to the same or similar effect and have thereby spread or caused or been party to or procured the spreading of lies.

In this regard, Particulars (l)-(4) above are repeated.

(6) In the premises, the Defendants have by reason of the matters pleaded in Particulars (l)-(5) above wrongfully caused concern to McDonald's staff, customers, suppliers and thousands of independent franchisees.

(7) The Defendants have made false claims as to their
McDonald's by denying that they have for many years taken prominent roles therein. The Defendants' involvement in the said campaign has been fully particularised and set out in the Further and Better Particulars of the Statement of Claim served on 3rd May 1991 and the Further and Better Particulars of the Further and Better Particulars of the Statement of Claim served on 30th July 1992 and in the witness statements of Sidney Nicholson, Terence Carroll (1) and (2), Edwina Bensilum, Alan Clare, Jack Russell, Roy Pocklington and Brian Bishop. Notwithstanding the same, the Defendants have made false claims as to their involvement in the campaign in their witness statements and on oath in answers to Interrogatories served on 1st March 1993 in the main action in that they have denied that they have for many years taken leading roles in the said campaign, including responsibility for organising demonstrations and Anti-McDonald's fayres, as is in fact the case. 8. Further or in the alternative, the said words set out in Paragraphs 13 and/or 14 and/or 16 of the Counterclaim were published in each case on an occasion of qualified privilege.

PARTICULARS
(1) The said words set out in Paragraph 13 and/or 14 and/or 16 of the Counterclaim were in each case published by the Second Plaintiff in necessary, reasonable and legitimate response to or anticipation of public attack upon the Plaintiffs, made or prompted by the Defendants, in the form of the material contained in the files appended hereto (namely, the McLibel File and the Media and Early Day Motions File).

(2) The said public attack upon the Plaintiffs, made or prompted by the Defendants, has comprised: (a) the repetition of allegations to the same or similar effect as those complained of and/or (b) the assertion whether expressly or by implication of the truth of the allegations complained of and/or (c) criticism of the Plaintiffs for having instituted and continued libel proceedings against the Defendants.

(3) In the premises, the Second Plaintiff published the
the Counterclaim in each case pursuant to a moral or social duty and/or legitimate interest to protect the Plaintiffs' respective reputations from public attack and in each case the publishees were under a moral or social duty and/or had a legitimate interest to receive the same by way of response to or reasonable anticipation of the said public attack.

Paragraph 18 of the Counterclaim is denied.

RICHARD RAMPTON QC
TIMOTHY ATKINSON

SERVED this 20th day of June 1944 by
Messrs. Barlow Lyde & Gilbert
Beaufort House
15 St. Botolph's Street
London
EC3A 7NJ.