12. This Counter claim arises out of publication occurring after the
Defence was pleaded. "Why McDonald's is going to court"
From 18th April 1994
McDonald's will go to court to stop the publication of the leaflet
"What's
Wrong with McDonald's" The leaflet is produced by London Greenpeace,
who call themselves anarchists and are NOT in any way connected to Greenpeace,
the renowned environmental organisation It contains many statements about
McDonald's which are The leaflet has been distributed worldwide since 1984. Its contents have
been repeated in the media, schools and even a church magazine During that
period, the group has ignored several requests from McDonald's to stop publishing
the leaflet As a last resort, McDonald's is going to Court to prove that
the contents of the leaflet are untrue and to stop its publication This
action is not about freedom of speech; it is about the right to stop people
telling lies"
1. It is admitted that the first Plaintiff owns the trademark 'McDonald's'
and through a number of subsidiaries operates a number of fast-food restaurants
under the said trade-mark and further franchises other fast-food restaurants
to operate under the said trade-mark. Save as aforesaid paragraph 1 is not
admitted.
2. The Defendants named Jonathan Farrell and Helen Mary Webster are not
known. Further, paragraph 2 of the Statement of Claim is not admitted.
3. It is denied that the Defendants and each of them published or caused
to be published and/or were party to the distribution and publication of
the said leaflet entitled I "what's wrong with McDonald's?" as
alleged in paragraph 3 of the Statement of Claim.
4. Further or in the alternative, it is not admitted that the said words
referred or were understood to refer to the Plaintiffs or either of them.
5. Further or in the alternative, it is denied that in their natural and
ordinary meaning the words complained of meant and were understood to mean
all or any of the meanings alleged in paragraph 4 of the Statement of Claim.
6. If, which is denied, the said words, in their natural and ordinary meaning,
meant, or were understood to mean, all or any of the meanings alleged in
paragraph 4 of the Statement of Claim, it is denied that all of these meanings
are capable of being defamatory of the Plaintiffs in their particular trading
capacities.
7. Further or in the alternative, the said words are only a part of the
leaflet entitled "What's wrong with McDonald's?". The Defendants
will refer at the trial of this action to the whole of the said leaflet
for its full terms and the context of the words complained of.
8. Further or in the alternative, the words complained of in their natural
and ordinary meaning are true in substance and in fact. In so far as it
may be necessary, the Defendants will rely on Section 5 of the Defamation
Act 1952. 2 Particulars of justification will be served separately.
9. Further or in the alternative, the words complained of are fair comment
on matters of public interest, namely the conduct and practices of the first
Plaintiff as a major corporation, operating and franchising restaurants
throughout the world, and the conduct and practices of the second Plaintiff
in managing fast-food restaurants in the United Kingdom. In so far as it
may be necessary the Defendants will rely on Section 6 of the Defamation
Act 1952. Particulars of fair comment will be served separately.
10. Paragraph 5 of the Statement of Claim is denied.
11. Paragraph 6 of the Statement of Claim is not admitted.
13. On 14th March 1994 the Second Plaintiff published or caused to be published
within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court a press release entitled:
"McDonald's Restaurants and London Greenpeace"
containing the following words defamatory of the Defendants:
"The attached briefing gives the background to the reasons
why McDonald's Restaurants is bringing a libel action against two individuals
representing the self-styled anarchist group "London Greenpeace. The
High Court will tomorrow (15th March) consider an Appeal by two members
of the self-styled anarchist group "London Greenpeace" against
a judge's ruling on two procedural issues in the libel action being brought
against them by McDonald's.
On Monday 18th April 1994 McDonald's (McDonald's Corporation and McDonald's
Restaurants Ltd) goes to the High Court in order to establish that a leaflet
entitled "What's Wrong With McDonald's", produced by London Greenpeace,
is libellous In December 1984 McDonald's solicitors wrote to the group expressing
concern about the leaflet, stating that it was defamatory and requesting
that the organisation disassociated themselves from the leaflet and its
contents. Despite several subsequent letters, no acknowledgement or reply
was ever received and persistent distribution of the leaflet continued.
In September 1990 McDonald's wrote to the five core 4 members of the group.
They were advised that the leaflet was defamatory and that proceedings had
been issued. They were invited to apologise and undertake to stop repeating/publishing
the allegations. As a result, three of the group did admit in Court that
the leaflet was libellous, they apologised and undertook not to repeat -the
lies." However, two of the group said they stood by the contents of
the leaflet and chose to defend it on the grounds that they maintained it
to be true.
The leaflet has been distributed extensively in and around McDonald's restaurants
since 1984 not just in the UK but worldwide, to the extent that its contents
have been reported in the media, in schools and even a church magazine.
If McDonald's does not take action to correct Ihese lies they will be assumed
to be true. These lies are affecting McDonald's staff, customers, suppliers
and thousands of independent franchisees. McDonald's has no choice, therefore,
but to take steps to stop these lies otherwise the group will continue to
deceive the public. The group is not incorporated therefore it was only
possible for McDonald's action to be against those individuals who were
responsible for distributing the leaflet and who chose to defend it.
This action is not about freedom of speech - it is about freedom to tell
the truth and the defendants are not telling the truth".
14. During April and May 1994 the Second Plaintiff published or caused to
be published within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, in the form
of a leaflet, the following words defamatory of the Defendants:
NOT TRUE AND HIGHLY DAMAGING
15. And the 2nd Plaintiff continues to publish the words set out in para
14 above.
16. During May 1994, the Second Plaintiff published or caused to be published
within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, in a document entitled
'Libel Action, Background Briefing', the following words defamatory of the
Defendants:
McDonald's (McDonald's Corporation and McDonald's Restaurants
Ltd.) goes to the High Court in June in order to establish that a leaflet
entitled "What's Wrong With McDonald's", produced by London Greenpeace,
is libellous. The leaflet in question, which was first published by the
group in 1984 contains many lies about McDonald's. In December 1984 McDonald's
solicitors wrote to the group expressing concern about the leaflet, stating
that it was defamatory and requesting that the organisation disassociated
themselves from the leaflet and its contents.
Despite several subsequent letters, no acknowledgement or reply was ever
received and persistent distribution of the leaflet continued. In September
1990 McDonald's wrote to the five core members of the group. They were again
advised that the leaflet was defamatory and that proceedings had been issued.
They were asked to apologise and undertake to stop repeating/publishing
the allegations. As a result, three of the group did admit in court that
the leaflet was libellous, they apologised and undertook not to repeat the
lies. However, two of the group said they stood by the contents of the leaflet
and chose to defend it on the grounds that they maintained it to be true.
The leaflet has been distributed extensively since 1984 not just in the
UK but worldwide, to the extent that its contents have been reported in
the media, in schools and even a church magazine. If McDonald's does not
take action to correct these lies they will be assumed to be true and come
to form part of public perception about McDonald's. These lies are affecting
McDonald's staff, customers, suppliers and thousands of independent franchisees.
McDonald's has no choice, therefore, but to take steps to stop these lies
otherwise the group will continue to deceive the public. The group is not
incorporated therefore it was only possible for McDonald's action to be
against those individuals who were responsible for distributing the leaflet
and who chose to defend it.
This action is not, however, about groups or individuals - it is about establishing
the truth. Nor is it about freedom of speech - it is about the right to
stop people telling lies. There are a number of additional issues which
have been raised: The group has suggested that McDonald's is attempting
to thwart free speech - this case is about stopping the further publication
of lies, it is not about freedom of speech it is about the truth and they
are not telling the truth. The imbalance between McDonald's Corporation
and two individuals - this case is not about groups or companies or individuals.
These two individuals have chosen to stand by the contents of the leaflet.
McDonald's maintains the leaflet is libellous. This case is about establishing
the truth and stopping further publication of these lies.
It has also been suggested that McDonald's has the unfair benefit of legal
advice - the group have long had the informal support of lawyers and this
was formalised with the appointment of a City law firm and two specialist
libel barristers to advise them. The fact that legal aid is not available
for libel cases is a matter for Parliament, not McDonald's.
The group have suggested that McDonald's used "spies" to infiltrate
the group - it is important to note that their meetings were advertised
as public meetings and, in order to establish precisely who was responsible
for distributing the lies in the leaflet, these meetings were indeed attended
on McDonald's behalf. These two individuals have chosen to defend the leaflet
and, contrary to their claims that they are not actively involved they have,
for many years, taken leading roles in a consistent campaign against McDonald's,
including responsibility for organising demonstrations and anti-McDonald's fayres.
The group have complained that McDonald's has withheld evidence - McDonald's
has complied fully with all obligations to disclose documents.
17. The said words in their natural and ordinary meaning meant and were
understood to mean that the Defendants and each of them:
By virtue of the said publications the Defendants have been greatly damaged
in their reputation and have been brought into public scandal, odium and
contempt. AND the Defendants and each of them counter-claim damages for
libel from the 2nd Plaintiff.
Helen Steel
David Morris
Re-dated this 3rd day of June 1994.