IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
BETWEEN:
(1) McDONALD'S CORPORATION
(2) McDONALD'S RESTAURANTS LTD
Plaintiffs
- and -
(1) HELEN MARIE STEEL
(2) DAVID MORRIS
Defendants
FURTHER AND BETTER PARTICULARS OF THE REPLY TO DEFENCE TO COUNTER
CLAIM
Under paragraph 2 of:
(1) The 2nd Plaintiff published the said words knowing them to be untrue
and/or being reckless as to their truth or falsity.
State all facts and matters relied upon in support of the above contention.
ANSWER:
- i. It is apparent from the Defence to Counterclaim, including Further
and Better Particulars etc., that the 2nd Plaintiff had no or no substantial
grounds for publishing the said words.
- ii. The 2nd Plaintiff knows from it's own history and that of the parent
company, and from the documents in their possession that the leaflets entitled
"What's wrong with McDonald's?" are true.
- iii. Further or alternatively, at the time of publication of the said
words, the 2nd Plaintiff was already in possession of pleadings, expert
reports, witness statements and documents served by the Defendants, and
was therefore aware of the truth of the statements in the London Greenpeace
leaflets and/or that the Defendants sincerely believed them to be true.
- iv. Since service of the Counterclaim, the 2nd Plaintiff has continued
to distribute the same and/or similar defamatory material, despite evidence
(including admissions by the Plaintiffs and their witnesses) given during
the trial confirming the truth of statements in the London Greenpeace leaflets
(e.g. inter alia, the links between diet and ill-health.
- v. In respect of meaning (c) the 2nd Plaintiff is fully aware that prior
to service of the writs in the main action, neither they, nor solicitors
acting on their behalf, had ever written to London Greenpeace (nor to individuals
involved with the group) stating that the company considered the factsheet
to be defamatory, or requesting that the group cease distribution of the
factsheet.
Of:
(2) The 2nd Plaintiff had as it's dominant motive in publishing the said
words a desire to vent it's spite or ill-will towards the defendants.
State all facts and matters relied upon in support of the above contention.
ANSWER:
- Since the service of the Counterclaim, and notwithstanding that they
are unable to justify the allegations made against the Defendants in the
said publications, the 2nd Plaintiff has continued to publish the said words.
As pleaded in answer 1 above, the 2nd Plaintiff knew and continues to know
the said words to be false, it is therefore to be inferred that the dominant
motive in publishing the said words was/is a desire to vent it's spite or
ill-will towards the Defendants.
Of:
(3) The Plaintiffs had an improper motive in publishing the said words namely
the desire to discredit the Defendants in the eyes of the media and the
public prior to the trial herein.
(a) State whether the reference to "the Plaintiffs" as opposed
to "the 2nd Plaintiff" has been made in error or otherwise state
the relevance to the Counterclaim of referring to the First Plaintiff in
regard to the above contention.
(b) State all facts and matters relied upon in support of the above contention.
ANSWER:
- (a) The Pleading should read "2nd Plaintiff".
- (b) i. The character of the defamatory material is to viciously attack
the credibility of the London Greenpeace and the Defendants, for example
by emphasis of the word 'lies' through repetition. The 2nd Plaintiff was/is
aware that the Defendants were and are relying on donations from the public
to fight their case. The said words were published just prior to commencement
of the main action, and have since continued throughout the main action.
As pleaded in answer 1 above the 2nd Plaintiff knew the said words to be
false, it is to be inferred that the reason for publishing the said words
was a desire to discredit the Defendants.
- ii. The Defendants will also rely on the following as evidence of the
desire by the 2nd Plaintiff to discredit the Defendants regardless of the
truth both prior to and during the main evidence.
- a. On a number of occasions representatives of the 2nd Plaintiff,
including Mike Love, Head of Communications, who is also responsible for
the leaflet complained of in the Counterclaim, have stated to the media
and others, that the company is not seeking damages and costs in this case,
despite the fact that the company has never dropped that part of it's claim
from the main action. It is to be inferred that the only reason for making
such a statement is to lessen the potential sympathy and thereby assistance
for the Defendants, knowing that they rely on donations from the public
to fund the defence of their case.
- b. Notwithstanding that Greenpeace Ltd has requested that McDonald's
do not use the letter attached to the press releases complained of, the
2nd Plaintiff has continued to distribute the said letter.
Served this 25th day of September 1995 by Helen Steel and David Morris.
Defendants.
To: Barlow, Lyde & Gilbert, Beaufort House, 15 St Botolph Street, London,
EC3A 7NJ. Solicitors for the Plaintiffs.