QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION BETWEEN:

• 1.The First plaintiff is the proprietor of the well-known McDonald's Restaurant chain in the United States of America and throughout the rest of the world. The Second plaintiff is responsible for managing McDonald's Restaurants within the United Kingdom.

• 2.The Defendants are members of or involved in the activities of an organisation calling itself "Greenpeace (London)" with headquarters at 5 Caledonian Road, London, N.1.

• 3.On diverse occasions in 1989 and 1990 including

2nd October 1989,
16th October 1989,
21st October 1989,
25th January 1990,
22nd February 1990 and
27th April 1990
the Defendants and each of them have published or caused to be published and/or been party to or procured the distribution and publication within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court of a leaflet entitled:
 
 


"What's wrong with McDonald's?"

containing the following words defamatory of the Plaintiffs:

 "What's wrong with McDonald's? Everything they don't want you to know.

McDollars McGreedy McCancer McMurder McDisease Mcprofits McDeadly McHunger McRip-off McTorture Mcwasteful McGarbage

This leaflet is asking you to think for a moment about what lies behind McDonald's clean, bright image. It's got a lot to hide. "At McDonald's we've got time for you" goes the jingle. Why then do they design the service so that you're in and out as soon as possible? Why is it so difficult to relax in a McDonald's? Why do you feel hungry again so soon after eating a Big Mac?" .... and virtually the whole Factsheet (except the last section) is quoted as being libellous..... Original Factsheet

• 4.The said words in their natural and ordinary meaning meant and were understood to mean that the plaintiffs and each of them :

• A.Have, by purchasing large tracts of land in poor countries, caused the eviction of small farmers that lived there growing food for their own people and as a result are to blame for starvation in the Third World.

• B.Are guilty of the destruction of rainforests, thereby causing wanton damage to the environment.

• C.Use and have used lethal poisons to destroy vast areas of Central American rainforest to create grazing pastures for cattle to be sent to the United States as burgers and pet foods and to provide fast-food packaging materials.

• D. Are lying when they claim to use re-cycled paper.

• E.Are, through their said conduct, contributing to a major ecological catastrophe, forcing the tribal people in the rainforests off their ancestral territories where they have lived peacefully, for thousands of years, without damaging their environment.

• F. Are deliberately misleading the public as to the nutritional value of the food they sell when they know full well that the contents of an average McDonald's meal are linked with cancers of the breast and bowel, and heart disease.

AMENDED 10/03/95:

• F. Sell meals which cause cancer of the breast and bowel and heart disease in their customers.


 Despite knowing that that is an accepted medical fact, deliberately and dishonestly conceal that fact from the public by publishing nutritional guiides which

(a) suppress that fact; and
(b) falsely claim that their meals are a useful and
nutritious part of any diet.

 

 

• G. Sell synthetic chips, and food which is so lacking in bulk that it is hardly possible to chew it.

• H. Sell food which is so high in sugar and sodium content that people develop an addiction for it, thereby allowing the Plaintiffs to earn greater profits for themselves notwithstanding that it causes constipation, clogged arteries and heart attacks for many people.

• I. Use gimmicks in their restaurants to cover up for the fact that the food is of low quality and in order to ensure that it looks the same throughout the world requires it to be treated with numerous chemicals.

• J. Nearly always use advertisements whose object is to trap children into thinking they are not normal if they do not go to McDonald's and who accordingly, as the Plaintiffs intend, pressurise their parents into taking them there.

• K. Promote the consumption of meals at McDonald's as a fun event when they knew full well that the contents could poison the children who eat them.

• L.Are responsible for the inhumane torture and murder of cattle, chickens and pigs.

AMENDED 10/03/95:

• Are utterly indifferent to the welfare of the animals which are used to produce their food ('the animals'), with the results (for which the Plaintiffs are to be held repsonsible) that:

 

 

1. the animals, especially chickens and pigs, spend their whole lives without access to air and sunshine and without any freedom of movement; and

 

 

2. the animals (chickens,pigs and cattle) are slaughtered by methods which are grossly inhumane, in that:

 

 

• the animals waiting to be slaughtered often struggle to escape;

 

 

• cattle waiting to be slaughtered become frantic as they approach as they watch the animal before them in the killing-line being prodded, beaten, electrocuted and knifed; and

 

 

• the methods used to stun the animals are so inefficient that the animals are frequently still fully concious when they have their throats cut.

 

 

• M. Sell hamburgers which are very likely to cause food poisoning.
• N. Pay bad wages and provide bad working conditions, taking advantage of the absence of the existence of any specific union for their woWrkers and adopting a policy of preventing unionisation by getting rid of pro-union workers.
• 0. Have taken advantage of the absence of a minimum wage in Britain to pay what they like, helping thereby to depress wages in the catering trade.
• P. Are only interested in recruiting cheap labour, and to this end exploit disadvantaged groups, women and black people especially.

• 5. By virtue of the said publication the Plaintiffs have been greatly damaged in their trading reputation, goodwill and credit and been brought into public scandal, odium and contempt.

• 6. Unless restrained by this Honourable Court the Defendants and each of them will further publish or cause to be published the said or similar defamatory words.

3/5/91

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION BETWEEN:
 
 

• 1. State whether it is the plaintiffs' case that the First Plaintiff owns all restaurants world-wide trading under the name "McDonald' S"

• 2. If not, identify the relationship between the First plaintiff and every such restaurant.

• 3. Further, explain what is meant by the term "is the proprietor of the well-known McDonald's restaurant chain".

• 1. It is not the plaintiffs' case.

• 2. ownership of the said restaurants fall within three different groups:
• (i) by subsidiary corporations of the First plaintiff;
• (ii) by franchisees of the First Plaintiff;
• (iii) by joint ventures in which the restaurant is owned by both the First plaintiff and a partner. 3. The plaintiffs rely upon the particulars given in the answer to 2 above.

• 3. Of "The Second plaintiff is responsible for managing McDonald's Restaurants within the United Kingdom".

• 4. State whether it is the Plaintiffs' case that the Second Plaintiff is responsible for managing each and every McDonald's restaurant in the United Kingdom.

• 5. If not, identify those restaurants for which the Second plaintiff is responsible for managing.

• 6. Identify the relationship between the First and Second plaintiffs.

• 4. It is not the plaintiffs' case that the Second Plaintiff is responsible for managing each and every McDonald's restaurant in the United Kingdom.

• 5. A list of those which the Second Plaintiff does manage i set out in the schedule attached hereto.

• 6. The Second plaintiff is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the First Plaintiff. Under paragraph 2 Of "The Defendants are members of or involved in the activities of an organisation calling itself "Greenpeace (London)" with headquarters at 5 Caledonian Road, London N1

• 7. State whether the Defendant named Helen Mary Webster in the Statement of Claim is being sued in her proper name.

• 8. If not, state why not.

• 9. Further, state her real name, and/or all other names that she is allegedly known by.

• 10. If it is proposed to identify the Defendant named Helen Mary Webster by any means other than that name identify all such proposed means of identification. 4.

• 11. State whether the Defendant named Jonathan Farrell in the Statement of Claim is being sued in his proper name.

• 12. If not, state why not.

• 13. Further, state his real name, and/or all other names that he is allegedly known by.

• 14. If it is proposed to identify the Defendant named Jonathan Farrell by any means other than that name identify all such proposed means of identification.

• 15. State how it is alleged that membership of or involvement in the activities of the said organisation by the Defendants or any of them is relevant in respect to the Plaintiffs' claims.

• 16. State in relation to each Defendant whether it is contended that he or she is a member of, or whether it is contended that he or she is or was involved in the activities of, the said organisation. Further identify, with such particularity and clarity as to enable the Defendants and each of them to fully know the case they are to meet, all facts and matters that will be relied upon at the trial of this matter to support any such contention.

• 17. State in respect of each Defendant the periods of time during which it is alleged he or she was a member of or involved in the activity of the said organisation. In particular, and in addition to the general request, state whether it is the Plaintffs' case that each Defendant was a member of or involved in the activities of the said organisation on each of the dates specified in Paragraph 3 of the Statement of Claim.

If not, specify which Defendants were members of the said organisation on which specified dates and which Defendants were involved in the activities of the organisation on which specified dates.

• 7. This request is no longer relevant in the light of the amendment to the Writ and Statement of Claim.

• 8. This is no longer relevant, and accordingly these particulars are not provided.

• 9. As far as the Plaintiffs are now aware the Second Defendant's real name is Helen Marie Steel. She is also known by the name of Helen Mary Webster and Helen Steel.

• 10. These particulars will be provided by way of answer to request number 11.

• 11. These particulars are no longer relevant to these proceedings and accordingly are not provided.

• 12. As in the answer to 11 above.

• 13. As in the answer to 11 above.

• 14. As in the answer to 11 above.

• 15. The plaintiffs only answer these particulars so far as they relate to the Second and Fourth Defendant. The leaflet containing the words complained of in paragraph 3 of the Statement of Claim bears the name of "Greenpeace (London)" with an address at 5 Caledonian Road, London N1, and, as already pleaded, it will be the plaintiffs' case that these Defendants were members of or involved In this organisation's activities and in particular in the dissemination of the said leaflets.

• 16. It is so alleged in relation to both Defendants. In the case of the Second Defendant (Steel) the Plaintiff will rely upon the following matters:

• (i) Her attendance at the Anti-McDonald's Day, organised by Greenpeace (London), on the 16th October 1989 outside McDonald's head office in East Finchley and where, on behalf of Greenpeace, she handed out the leaflet which was complained of to members of the public.

• (ii) Her attendance at an open meeting held by Greenpeace at 6 Endsleigh Street, London WC1 on the 26th January 1990 (along with the four other Defendants) when the campaign against the Plaintiffs was discussed and, in particular, the public's awareness of it created by the created offending and other leaflets.

• (iii) Her attendance at an open meeting at the said address on the 22nd February 1990 when inter alia the said leaflet was distributed.

In relation to the Fourth Defendant (Morris) the Plaintiffs will rely upon the following particulars:

• (i) His attendance at the meeting referred to on the 26th January 1990 particularised to in (ii) above.

• (ii) His attendance at an open meeting of Greenpeace (London) held at Endsleigh Street on the 26th April 1990 when leaflets were distributed, and at which the following topics were discussed including:

 

 

• (a) The Annual International Mail Out by London Greenpeace which was to include the mailing of the leaflet complained of;

• (b) The Anti-McDonald's Fayre (re-named London Greenpeace Fayre) for 1990.

• 17. The Plaintiffs are unable to give these particulars until after the service of Interrogatories and/or discovery but will contend that the Defendants were members of the said organisation on the dates specifically complained of in paragraph 3 of the Statement of Claim, and more generally in 1989 and 1990. Under Paragraph 3 Of "On divers occasions in 1989 and 1990" Request

• 18. Specify each and every such occasion that the Plaintiffs seek to rely upon at trial of this matter. Of "including 2nd October 1989, 16th October 1989, 21st October 1989, 25th January 1990, 22nd February 1990 and 27th April 1990 the Defendants and each of them have published or caused to be published and/or been party to or procured the distribution and publication within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court of a leaflet entitled "What's wrong with McDonald's?"

• 19. State in relation to each Defendant whether it is alleged that he or she published or caused to be published and/or was a party to or procured the distribution and publication of the said leaflet on each specified date.

• 20. If not, identify with respect to each Defendant separately on which dates it is alleged he or she published or caused to be published and/or was party to or procured the distribution and publication the said leaflet.

• 21. State in respect of each Defendant and in respect of each date relied upon (either as set out in paragraph 3 of the Statement of Claim or under the reply to request number 10 above) separately whether it is alleged that he or she (i) published or (ii) caused to be published or (iii) was a party to or (iv) procured the distribution and publication of the said leaflet. In addition state with such particularity and clarity as to enable the Defendants and each of them to fully know the case they are to meet, all facts and matters that will be relied upon at the trial of this matter to support any such allegation.

• 22. StateMwhether it is the Plaintiffs' case that the Defendants or any of them were the authors of the said leaflet. If so specify which Defendant was allegedly the author and where and when it is alleged the said leaflet was written.

• 23. State whether it is the Plaintiffs' case that the Defendants or any of them were the printers of the said leaflet. If so specify which Defendant was allegedly the printer and where and when it is alleged the said leaflet was printed.

• 24. State whether it is the Plaintiffs' case that the Defendants or any of them were the publishers of the said leaflet. If so specify which Defendant was allegedly the publisher and where and when it is alleged the said leaflet was published. In addition specify with such particularity and clarity that the Defendants and each of them are able to know the case they are to meet what form it is alleged the publication took, including the means of publication, the dates, the place and to whom it is alleged the said leaflet was published.

• 25. Insofar as the Plaintiffs rely on distribution of the said leaflet by the Defendants or any of them state where, when, to whom and by whom it is alleged that the said leaflet was distributed. Further state approximately how many leaflets it is alleged each Defendant distributed.

• 18 and 19. The Plaintiffs will only rely upon the specific dates which have been pleaded. In relation to the Second Defendant (Steel) it is the Plaintiffs' case that she published the leaflet containing the said words on the 16th October 1989, 26th January 1990 (not the 25th as mistakenly pleaded) and 22nd February 1990, and that, through her membership or involvement in the activities of Greenpeace, was a party to or procured the distribution and publication of the said leaflet on the other specified dates. In relation to the Fourth Defendant (Morris) it is the Plaintiffs' case that he published the said leaflet on the 26th January 1990 and on the 26th April 1990, and that he was a party to or procured the distribution and publication of the said leaflet on the other specified dates.

• 20. The said particulars have already been given in the answer to 18 and 19 above.

• 21. The said particulars have already been adequately furnished in the answers to 18 and 19 above. plaintiffs.

• 22. It is not the case that these Defendants were the authors of the said leaflet. The author of the said leaflet is at present unknown to the Plaintiffs.

• 23. It is not the Plaintiffs' case that these Defendants or either of them were the printers of the said leaflet.

• 24. It is the Plaintiffs' case that both Defendants were the publishers of the said leaflet in that by distributing or disseminating it to third parties they are in the position of publishers thereof. Particulars giving rise to the allegation of publication have already been given in the answers above.

• 25. The Plaintiffs are unable to be precise about the number of leaflets distributed On the 16th October 1989 (as particularised above) the Second Defendant was in attendance outside McDonald's head office in East Finchley and handing out leaflets to Members of the public. The best estimate that the Plaintiffs can make is that at least several hundred leaflets were distributed in this way.


Similarly, at the Anti-McDonald's Fayre held on 21st October 1991 a number of the said leaflets were piled on the Greenpeace (London) stall for distribution and the Plaintiffs are unable to state how many were picked up or handed to members of the public.

In relation to the meetings referred to in the answer to request number 18 above, it is the Plaintiffs' case that several hundred leaflets were made available in piles for collection by persons attending the meetings and more than about 25 would have been handed out or collected at each of these meetings. Under Paragraph 5 Of By virtue of the said publication the Plaintiffs have been greatly damaged in their trading reputation, goodwill and credit"

• 26. Specify the trading character of the First and Second Plaintiff, outlining the 'trade' engaged in, the types of work or business undertaken and the place of incorporation.

• 27. If the place of incorporation is outside the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court state whether it is alleged that the said leaflet complained of was ever distributed in the country in which either Plaintiff was incorporated. If not, state in what capacity that particular Plaintiff 'trades' within the jurisdiction. Further in respect of each Plaintiff state with full particularity and clarity all facts and matters relating to the background of each Plaintiff that will be relied upon at trial of this matter.

• 28. If the Plaintiffs or either of them have several trading capacities or broad trading capacities outline the trading reputation or that part of the trading reputation.

• 29. Identify with such particularity and clarity so that the Defendants may know the case they are to meet any particulars of damage to the Plaintffs' trading reputation, goodwill and credit and/or each of them which the Plaintiffs will seek to rely upon at trial of this matter.

• 26. The First Plaintiff is incorporated in Delaware, USA, and the Second Plaintiff in England. The Plaintiffs' trade is fast food restaurants, selling food, principally hamburgers, to the public. It is only the First Plaintiff which is incorporated outside the jurisdiction.

• 27. It is the Plaintiffs' case that the said leaflet has been distributed outside the jurisdiction, but does not complain thereof in this action and accordingly the Defendants are not entitled to these particulars.

• 28. The Defendants are not entitled to these particulars.

• 29. The Plaintiffs do not seek to claim any special damage in this claim, but rely upon the presumed general damage to their trading reputations, goodwill and credit as is already pleaded under paragraph 5 of the Statement of Claim.

THOMAS SHIELDS SERVED this day of May 1991 by

BARLOW LYDE & GILBERT
Beaufort House
15 St. Botolph Street
London
EC3A 7NJ.
 

Solicitors for the Plaintiffs