1. I am the President, and Chief Executive Officer of McDonald's Restaurants Limited.
2. I am also the Relationship Partner for Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Holland, Belgium, Switzerland, Iceland and Ireland. As Relationship Partner for these European countries I am the individual charged with working with the McDonald's partners and Managing Directors in those countries to help and assist them in running their organisation. I do not have any day to day management responsibilities for these European countries as my role is one of overall strategic adviser.
3. I first started working for McDonald's in 1964 as a part-time employee in Cleveland, Ohio. At this time I was still a school student and I worked at my convenience during the school year and during the holidays to accommodate my school schedule.
4. At University I continued to work for McDonald's on a part-time basis to supplement my income and to gain first-hand working experience.
5. Whilst in Cleveland, Ohio, I worked for Bob Rhea, a McDonald's Licensee.
6. In 1973 Bob Rhea was asked to become the McDonald's Corporation partner in developing McDonald's restaurants in the United Kingdom and he invited me to join him in the assignment. The commitment was for a minimum of 3 years and a maximum of 5 years.
7. I agreed, and I arrived in the United Kingdom in July 1974; in October 1974 the first restaurant opened in Woolwich. My position was that of full-time salaried store manager.
8. Additional to the store managers' tasks I had responsibility for quality assurance and purchasing.
9. Three further stores were opened in 1975 and I was promoted from store manager into a supervisory role from which position I progressed through the Company as it developed and expanded rising to the position of Executive Vice President and Chief Operations Officer in 1984. In January 1985 I became the President and Chief Operations Officer of the Company and in April 1986 I rose to my current position of President and Chief Executive Officer.
10. The McDonald's Corporation is a publicly owned company in the United States of America whose shores are traded actively on the New York Stock Exchange, amongst others. Its head office was originally in Chicago but in recent years it. Head Office moved to Oakbrook, Illinois.
11. The Company was founded in 1955 by Ray Kroc.
12. As at December 1992 McDonald's traded in 63 countries worldwide with approximately 13,000 restaurants.
13. In December 1989 there were 11,162 restaurants operating in 51 countries worldwide.
14. Over 80t of restaurants in the world are franchised to individual owner operators who are for the most part local people participating in the McDonald's business.
15. Each franchisee has to adhere to the high standards of quality service cleanliness and value ("QSCV") set by McDonald's subject to local customs and laws.
16. The franchisee's operations are overseen by local management of McDonald's to ensure that the high standards set by McDonalds are adhered to and the local management will in turn be responsible to the President of McDonald's International to monitor the system, reporting to the President either directly or through the relationship partner.
17. With regard to the position in the United Kingdom there are currently 480 restaurants as at May 1993 with approximately 31,000 employees both full and part time and who are paid on an hourly/salaried basin. Currently lit of the restaurants in the United Kingdom are franchised and many of these franchisees worked for the Company prior to becoming owner operators.
18. In December 1989 the second Plaintiff Company in the United Kingdom operated 337 restaurants with approximately 22,000 staff.
19. In the United Kingdom the Company trades nationally in Scotland, England, Northern Ireland and Wales.
20. The Second Plaintiff Company was originally a joint venture enterprise between McDonald's Corporation on the one hand and Bob Rhea and Geoffrey Wade on the other. It was a 10 year joint venture which was dissolved by mutual agreement in 1983 when the Company became a wholly owned subsidiary of the McDonald's Corporation.
21. At Appendix 1 of this statement is a list of McDonald's restaurants operated in the United Kingdom which were served with the Further and Better Particulars of the Statement of Claim on behalf of the First and Second Plaintiffs in 3rd May 1991. At Appendix 2 is a comprehensive schedule of all restaurants operating in the United Kingdom as at May 1993.
22. The leaflet distributed by Greenpeace (London) entitled "What's Wrong with McDonald's?", which is the leaflet complained of and which is the subject matter of these proceedings and has to my knowledge been in circulation since about 1987. I consider that thin leaflet contains many highly defamatory statements about the First and Second Plaintiffs which are damaging to its business and reputation. It was because of (a) the serious nature of these allegations and (b) the fact that this leaflet in the same or similar form and containing the same or similar allegations against McDonald's has been distributed worldwide that the First and Second Plaintiffs brought proceedings against those persons responsible for the distribution and dissemination of the leaflet to restrain further publication.
23. I have read the Particulars of Justification and Fair Comment and all the Further and Better Particulars of this pleading on which I have the following general comments:
a. Destruction of the Environment
It is alleged that the First and Second Plaintiffs are responsible for rainforest destruction in 1979 in Guatemala and in 1983, 1984 and 1988 in Costa Rica. It is and always has been the policy of the McDonald's Corporation and subsidiaries, which policy was committed to writing in 1989, that beef from cattle raised on the Company. This policy is strictly and regularly monitored. McDonald's is, and to my knowledge always has been, on the leading edge of implementing and adopting sound environmental policies and practices. It has always been aware of its environmental responsibilities, for example with regard to the content of its packaging, although in making any decisions which have an environmental impact consideration is given to the safety and hygiene of our products both of which which are of paramount importance to the Company.
In each country in which it operates McDonald's has to respect the local laws, customs, environmental concerns and technology available. In many countries in the world McDonald's is the impetus for the development of environmental technology; for example in the United Kingdom, McDonald's wished to recycle its polystyrene packaging but there was no technology available for this undertaking. Consequently the Second Plaintiff worked with Linpac Plastics International Limited, which company supplies McDonald's Restaurants Limited with all foam clamshells in building Europe's first post-consumer polystyrene recycling plant.
Throughout the world McDonald's operating policy is that of delivering quality, service, cleanliness and value ("QSCV').
I believe that the food at McDonald's is wholesome and nutritious when eaten as part of a well-balanced diet, which fact is reinforced in the nutritional leaflet provided by the Company which counsels that McDonald's food should be eaten as part of a well balanced diet. Additionally McDonald's was the first restaurant company to provide leaflets, entitled "McDonalds Food: The Facts" available to all members of the public, specifying the composition and nutritional values of its foods, giving details of fats, calories, sugar, energy etc. to assist them to make informed decisions about their diet.
c. Advertising aimed at Children
Because McDonald's acknowledges its responsibilities to its customers, which includes children, it has adopted tight standards internally regarding its advertising which are rigorously enforced. Furthermore, in the United Kingdom and in many other countries in the world, all television advertisements have to be approved by outside bodies, who also have their own high standards and restrictions on irresponsible advertising; in the United Kingdom all advertisements have to be approved by the Independent Broadcasting Authority.
d. Slaughter of Animals
McDonald's does not manufacture raw materials used to produce its menu in its restaurants, all these are purchased from independent suppliers and distributors. In all countries worldwide McDonald's suppliers comply with the local laws, ensuring that all regulations regarding the welfare of animals and high standards of hygiene are satisfied. In many instances these standards exceed those required by law.
For example, in the United Kingdom McDonald's stipulates that its suppliers purchase meat only from EC approved sources who have had to comply with the very strict guidelines set down by the EC on animal slaughter, welfare and hygiene. All suppliers' sources are also EC monitored to ensure that these guidelines are met.
e. Employment Practices
In many countries of the world there are laws governing the minimum wages that must be paid to staff and it is paid below the minimum wage in any circumstances. In the United States the minimum wage in regulated by the Federal Government and in the United Kingdom it is set by the Wages Council for those employees over 21 yearn of age. McDonald's hourly paid employees over 21 years of age will start at a basic wage which is at or above the minimum wage, but within 21 days after the probationary period has been passed satisfactorily, the crew member will be given a wage review depending on performance. Thereafter wage reviews are conducted twice yearly. The policy of McDonald's is to encourage upward mobility by giving its staff proper training and career enhancement and a significant number of management staff are recruited from hourly paid staff and a number of management employees become franchisees.
It is incorrect to say that McDonald's is hostile to trade unions. In the United Kingdom by law all staff have the right to join a trade union. It is McDonald's practice and policy to communicate with staff constantly and to ensure that the communication is a two way process. Consequently our staff have found it unnecessary to have third party representation. By way of Rap Sessions and Crew Meetings staff are able to express any concerns they have about their employment or terms of it and the Company considers that communication is an integral part of its business.
In the Reply to a Request for Further and Better Particulars of the Particulars of Justification and Fair Comment it is alleged by the Defendant. that a statement attributed to me is supportive of their allegation that McDonald 'j is hostile towards trade unions. It is correct that I stated that we do not consider unions to be necessary in McDonald' s. My reason for so saying is that the Company's paramount principle of communication is such that if unions or other representatives did become necessary then I would consider that the Company had failed in communicating with its staff.
The system of Rap Sessions and Crew Meetings is a process whereby a management group, not connected with a particular restaurant, will meet with crew members and other members of staff to discuss any problems they may have. If there is a problem it is addressed without the need of intervention by third parties.
With regard to the newspaper article, I cannot recall saying or thinking that representation of staff by unions would impact upon our results or sales. However, it is my view that the need for negotiation of terms and conditions with unions or other third parties as opposed to doing so with staff direct is an unnecessary step in the communication process.
24. The reason McDonald's has chosen to issue proceedings against these Defendants is because it is concerned that the allegations made in the leaflet which has been distributed extensively throughout the United Kingdom and worldwide will continue to be extensively repeated. An earlier example of worldwide distribution was, in 1987 on the occasion of the opening of the ten thousandth restaurant in Dale City, Virginia. Mike Quinlin, the company's then President, rose to make an address to the audience and as he started to speak a man jumped onto the stage interrupting the address throwing many copies of the leaflet complained of into the audience and shouting words to the effect that the leaflet explained what is wrong with McDonald 's. I was not in attendance at the occasion but watched it live on screen and saw this disruption.
Since that time I have become aware that the leaflet has been translated verbatim or in similar terms into many languages and has been distributed in many countries including France, Portugal, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Malaya, Belgium, Norway, The United States of America and Canada.
25. Further, the leaflet complained of has been extensively distributed and disseminated within the United Kingdom both by Greenpeace (London) and by other organisations, e.g. Veggies. For example, it was circulated to parishioners in a village in Hertfordshire attached to and as part of the church magazine. This is disclosed on pages 96-101 of Document 147 in the Plaintiff's Supplementary List of Documents.
26. I have personally received a number of complaints and requests for information from franchisees in the United Kingdom and abroad, from employees at all levels within the Company and from customers Inquiring about this leaflet and asking for confirmation as to whether the information contained in it is true. Many customers have indicated that they would not continue to patronise our restaurants if the contents of the leaflet were true.
27. As well as requests for information made to me personally by staff and members of the public, the Company's Public Relations Department have received many requests for information regarding the allegations contained in this leaflet and to my personal knowledge I know that many of the issues contained in it, for example, allegations of rain forest destruction and nutrition are matters which have been 'taught' at schools in the United Kingdom.
28. Because of the extent of the distribution of this leaflet in the United Kingdom and worldwide I and the Company consider that these untrue allegations are very damaging to the reputation of our business particularly as McDonald's strives to ensure that its practices and policies in respect of all of the issues in this action are both sensible and responsible.
29. Not only has this leaflet been disseminated extensively in the United Kingdom and worldwide prior to proceedings being issued by McDonald's, but also on numerous occasions subsequently these Defendants have repeated the same or similar allegations, for example, in their McLibel leaflets distributed in May 1991, October 1991 and October 1992. It is my and the Plaintiff Company's belief that unless these two Defendants are restrained by the Honourable Court they will either by themselves, their servants, agents or otherwise continue to publish the allegations complained of in this leaflet as particularised in paragraph 4 of the Statement of Claim or make allegations of similar effect.
1. This statement is supplementary to my first statement dated
2. Following an amendment to the Defendants' pleading in July 1993, an allegation was included to the effect that customers face the risk of food poisoning by eating McDonald's products. In support of this allegation the Defendants refer to an incident of food poisoning in Preston in January 1991, the cause of which was attributed to McDonald 'a. For the purposes of this case only , McDonald's have accepted responsibility for the outbreak.
3. As a result of this incident, I instructed the relevant departments within the Company (particularly the Quality Assurance Department) to investigate the incident and if it were found that there were areas or procedures which needed to be redesigned or improved so as to make as sure as possible that no such outbreak should occur in the future, to take whatever steps were necessary to achieve that object.
The steps that were in fact taken as a consequence of my instructions are described in full in the statement of David Wignall.
1. This statement is supplementary to my two statements served in July 1993 and February 1994 and addresses new allegations made by the Defendants in their Re-Amended Defence served in April 1994.
2. On page 2 pare 2 it is alleged that in or around 1991 I stated in an interview with the Evening Standard that "litter is certainly the biggest complaint" the company receives. It is correct that I made this statement but the Defendants have taken the statement out of context. As will be seen from the full article attached to this statement at Appendix 1, the observation I made was that in my opinion discarding litter is a social problem in this country and that people of all ages drop litter of all sorts, not just McDonald's packaging.
3. The company's policy on litter including provision of bins and the collection of litter is part of the company's policy worldwide and is Ingrained into the system. It is part of the company's philosophy of giving back to the community.
4. The company has always endeavoured to minimise the amount of litter discarded by its customers which we do in a number of ways. First we place many litter bins inside the restaurants with notices requesting customers to dispose of their rubbish properly and we also ensure that litter bins are located outside each restaurant so that customers may discard their rubbish as they leave.
5. Second, in all our restaurants we ensure that staff, either crew members or lobby hosts/hostesses, always clear rubbish from tables and from the restaurant generally and dispose of it in the many litter bins provided. Thirdly, each restaurant will undertake 'litter patrols'. These are walks undertaken by crew members around the vicinity of the restaurant about every i-1 hour depending on the location and volume of customers of each restaurant. All litter from whatever source is collected and brought back to the restaurant for safe disposal. To my knowledge no other restaurant conducts litter patrols and certainly McDonald's was the first to do so. These patrols have been in operation since the company opened its first restaurant in the United Kingdom in 1974 and is standard practice throughout the McDonald's system. I recall conducting litter patrols myself in the United States in the 1960's when I worked as a crew member.
6. Additionally both on a local and national basis the company sponsors and/or works with various groups to promote environmental responsibility in the disposal of litter by the public. For example we work with the Tidy Britain Group in a number of projects, including touring cities informing the public of the proper disposal of waste and in their 'Spring Clean Days' campaign In 1992/93 the company was awarded the Queen's Mother's Birthday Award for Environmental Improvement. We have also been awarded a Certificate of Excellence by the London in Bloom Committee of the Tidy Britain Group for encouraging excellence of floral display in London.
7. Many public litter bins are sponsored by the company in towns and cities around Britain.
8. Although this litter policy is not part of the company's franchising arrangement, no licensee would reject it because, as I have said, it is engrained in the McDonald's operational practice.
9. At present the company has approximately 528 restaurants in the United Kingdom, 90 of which are franchised to 73 licensees. The target is for a third of our restaurants to be franchised by the end of 1996.
10. The reason for this is that the company recognises that there are a number of benefits in having owner/operators living and working in the community in which they operate, which motivates them to do their work to the best of their ability. This keeps standards high which in turn keeps the company strong. Also the company is able to expand more profitably quicker than by internal growth.
11. A mixture of licensed and company owned restaurants also provides better checks and balances to the system as owner/operators are less likely to tolerate poor quality products or service than company managers, however well trained and motivated.
12. The company is able to monitor the standards of quality, service and cleanliness and value given by licensees in a number of ways. First, all licensed restaurants have a Field Consultant, who is a McDonald's employee, who is responsible for giving advice and support to the licensee, as well as undertaking detailed audits of the store every six months. These consist of performance reviews covering matters such as operations, financial review and profitability. The Field Consultant looks at every aspect of the licensee's business, including their employment practices, standards of health and hygiene, health and safety matters, banking, working conditions, etc. If licensees encounter difficulties or fall short of the company's high standards in any of these areas they will be brought to their attention by the Field Consultant who will offer advice and support in ensuring that such difficulties or shortfalls are overcome.
13. Before Licensees begin operating their own restaurant they will all have gone through a Probationary period, the length of which varies according to the experience or circumstances of each person. There is first a rigorous interview process when licensees are interviewed by regional managers/officers of the company from different disciplines to ensure that their motivation, attitude and. personality are compatible with that of the company and its operational systems. Once selected, licensees will go through a training process, some will train part time, which can take from between 9-24 months, whereas others train full time and qualify usually within 12 months. Some licensees will already have worked for the company for a number of years either in an operational or administrative capacity so little further training is required.
14. During this extensive training period a licensee works in a company store and each learns and is trained in the company's operating systems, standards and practices. These they then adopt when they run their own restaurants.
15. Because the McDonald's system, practices and philosophies are Ingrained into licensees the high standards of the company are maintained.
16. As I have said above, all licensed restaurants are subject to regular full field audits and if there is persistent default the franchise can be terminated. Examples include default in quality, service, cleanliness and value, sub-standard operations or default in hygiene standards.
17. In the United Kingdom there has been only one cane where a franchise has been terminated since 1974 and this was by mutual agreement. The licensee did not enjoy the system and as such the restaurant was not run to its full potential. Consequently it was mutually agreed that the franchise should be terminated.
18. There are no financial penalties to the franchisee on termination.
19. In my opinion one of the reasons for the success of the McDonald's system is that the company operates their franchises differently from most other organisations. McDonald's charges very little for the license and does not sell any products to the licensee. The licensees buy direct from suppliers who may be different suppliers from those of the company, providing the new suppliers can demonstrate that they meet McDonald's specifications and standards. New suppliers have been introduced to the company's system through the recommendation of licensees.
20. The company makes its profits from royalties paid by the licensees. The company controls the real estate. Thus, if the licensee Is restaurant is not profitable, the royalties paid to the company are reduced. This means that the fortunes of the company and of the licensee are married together in ensuring that the restaurant is run as successfully as possible.
21. In the United States where the majority of the company's restaurants are franchised black people and women form a large part of the licensee community.
22. In paragraph 7 on page 3 of the Re-Amended Defence it is stated that on the opening day of the first restaurant in the United Kingdom not one member bought any food despite a large promotional exercise. It is true that on the first day there were a few customers who came into the restaurant which traded for only half a day, from between 2-3 p.m. to the evening.
23. At the time the restaurant management comprised Bob Rhea who was the joint venture partner with Geoffrey Wade and me. I was the Manager and I was also in charge of purchasing.
24. Although the company on the first day only had limited takings (I recall they were in the region of £100) we persevered and the company now has over 500 restaurants with a projected turnover in 1994 of £72Om.
25. Not only is the United Kingdom company successful in terms of size and profit, it is also used as a training ground for many other countries and has provided a buoyant export market for our suppliers. 26. On page 5 paragraph 6 of the Defendants' Re-Amended Defence is it alleged that I admitted in or before December 1985 that 'most of our television commercials went out in the afternoon when the kids were watching. It was pressure from the kids which brought the parents into our restaurants."
27. I have no recollection of making this statement and do not believe that I did so because the contents of it are not correct. The majority of our television commercials do not go out and never have gone out in the afternoon. Such commercials, particularly in 1985 when McDonald's wan less well-known to the public, were screened when parents were also watching the television which is known as 'cross over time'. This ensures that parents are able to see and if necessary monitor what their children are watching.
SIGNED Paul S. Preston DATED 24 May 94
1. I make this second supplementary statement in response to the Defendants' counterclaim proceedings. I am familiar with the counterclaim pleadings. I have seen some of the literature circulated by the Defendants, by London Greenpeace and by the McLibel Support Campaign both before and during the trial.
2. By way of background, proceedings in this action commenced in September 1990; the trial was originally scheduled to begin in October 1993 and, following two adjournments (28 February 1994 and 18 April 1994), it began on 27 June 1994. Throughout this period I was regularly informed of developments and progress by those in the company with responsibility-for the litigation and by our lawyers. Additionally, as the trial got nearer, the communications department kept me abreast of activities affecting that department.
3. Before service of the writs I had seen various leaflets produced by London Greenpeace about the group, its activities and its campaign against McDonald's. In particular I recall a leaflet about the group headed "Greenpeace (London)" (at Appendix 1) which I read at that time. It was clear to me that London Greenpeace's aim in attacking McDonald's was to "smash a multinational that epitomises everything we despise ..." Everything I had read or learned about the case led me to believe (as I still believe) that the Defendants knew that the allegations in the leaflets were false or had published them without caring whether they were true or not as part of the campaign to smash the company. 4. Despite the fact that the company has provided the Defendants with numerous documents and witness statements refuting their allegations the Defendants throughout the litigation have persistently re-affirmed the truth of the allegations in the leaflet.
5. I have also noticed that as well as affirming the truth of the allegations in the leaflet, almost all the literature circulated by the Defendants, through London Greenpeace and the McLibel Support Campaign, encourages others to repeat the libels against my company.
6. As well as receiving reports about the case and reading the Defendants' literature, I have attended Court on numerous occasions throughout the trial and have observed the conduct of the Defendants.
7. The combination of all I have seen, read and heard about the Defendants and their conduct of the action cements in my mind their overriding malicious purpose, which is to destroy McDonald's. My view is strengthened by the fact that three other leading activists in London Greenpeace acknowledged in open Court that the accusations in the leaflet were false and withdrew them, apologised to the company and undertook to the Court not to repeat the allegations (at Appendix 2).
8. There had been numerous pre-trial mail-outs, case summaries and leaflets put out by the Defendants and the McLibel Support Campaign which, in effect, asserted
(1) that the allegations against McDonald's in the 'What's wrong with McDonald's?' leaflet were true;
(2) that McDonald's was lying in denying the allegations;
(3) that McDonald's purpose in bringing the action was to suppress the truth by silencing their critics through the Courts; and
(4) that McDonald's was manipulating the Courts so as to prevent disclosure of documents which would show the truth of the allegations in the leaflet complained of.
Until January 1994 the company had not responded to this material with any literature of its own. However at that time it became clear that the Defendants were intensifying their publicity efforts with a view to manipulating public opinion in the run-up to the trial. Examples of this are the Defendants' January 1994 case summary, their "update" of 11 January 1994 and their pre-trial mailout for the end of January 1994 (Appendix 3).
9. On 11 February 1994 the Defendants, through the McLibel Support Campaign, produced a press release relating to the impending trial. This was soon followed by another one on 5 March 1994. Both of these are at Appendix 4.
Further on 11 March there was news coverage of the Defendants' application for leave to appeal which, I was informed, was seriously inaccurate.
10. From all of this it was clear to us that as the trial approached and media interest increased, there was a real danger that our customers, franchisees, employees and their families might be misled into accepting what the Defendants were saying if we allowed it to pass without challenge. We wanted to put the record straight. In particular we wanted to get across that the allegations were untrue and that the sole purpose of bringing the action was to establish the truth once and for all.
11. The hearing in the Court of Appeal took place on 15 March 1994. Before the hearing the communications department learned that the Defendants were about to hold a press conference. In response to this information, the communications department produced and distributed a Press Briefing (Appendix 5) which was sent to all the people they thought would be invited to that press conference, i.e. all news desk and legal correspondents in the national media.
12. The trial had been adjourned to 18 April 1994. By that time the publicity in the media and the sustained campaign by the Defendants and their supporters was causing concern to members of the public who had started asking questions about it. We wanted to ensure that they got a true and fair account of the reasons why the company was going to Court. Therefore, the communications department produced a short leaflet (Appendix 6) entitled "To our Customers" in anticipation of further enquiries that might be generated by the Defendants' publicity. 13. This leaflet was not intended for general circulation to members of the public in the restaurants, although I believe this would have been perfectly appropriate. Each restaurant was issued with a box of 500 leaflets which were to be handed to our customers over the counter on enquiry. A few managers, however, put them on display in the 'Did you Know' Boards and on tables in the restaurants.
14. In anticipation of media enquiries at the start of the trial the communications department also prepared a Background Briefing (Appendix 7). This was first produced in anticipation of the trial beginning in April 1994 and then updated in June to take account of the new trial date. I understand that about 30 copies have been handed out so far.
15. Although I was not involved in the drafting of these three documents I am sure that I was shown them for approval before they were released. Having recently re-read them, I am happy with their contents and, subject to the clarification made in paragraph 17 below, there is nothing in them which I wish to retract or modify.
16. All of these documents refer to the allegations made by the Defendants in the leaflet complained of as "lies." By this we meant that the allegations were untrue and that, as I have said in paragraph 3 above, the Defendants either knew them to be untrue or did not care whether they were true or not. It is clear to me that the Defendants are happy to accuse McDonald's of lying as they have done, for example, in the London Greenpeace Fayre programme 1990 (Appendix 8), in the McLibel Support Campaign summary dated January 1994 (Appendix 3), in their press release dated 25 March 1994 (Appendix 8), and several times in their opening speeches.
17. With regard to the point the Defendants make in the counterclaim pleadings that no letter before action was sent to them or London Greenpeace in respect of the leaflet complained of, the position is as follows. In 1984 our solicitors, Barlow Lyde & Gilbert, wrote a letter to London Greenpeace requesting that they cease further distribution of a leaflet which preceded the fact sheet but which contained similar allegations and the same cartoon with the caption "If the slaughterhouse doesn't get to you .. the junk food will." This letter was ignored. At the time the writs were served (September 1990) our solicitors wrote to the Defendants stating, in essence, that if they agreed to cease further distribution of the factsheet the proceedings would be brought to an end. The Defendants did not agree to this. There had also been correspondence with the organisation 'Veggies' about a leaflet published by them in identical terms to the factsheet. I am informed that at the time the company's customer leaflet and media briefings were prepared, the 1984 London Greenpeace file was not available and the information relating to it was based on the understanding of the partner conducting this litigation who had not had the conduct of the matter in 1984. In the light of answer 1(v) of the Further and Better Particulars of the Reply to Defence to Counterclaim served in September 1995 1 am informed that our lawyers have checked the matter and will apply to amend the pleadings accordingly. 18. The Defendants allege that one of our reasons for producing the briefings and the customer leaflet was to discredit them publicly and to undermine their attempt to raise donations from the public at the start of the trial. This is quite untrue. We produced the documents in response to the attacks on us by the Defendants and their attempts to mislead the public about our motives for bringing the action, our conduct of the case and the issues involved.
19. It is untrue that our approach to the question of damages and costs has been designed to undermine the Defendants' ability to raise funds. As I stated in Court, and as Mike Love has since confirmed, the primary purpose of this litigation is not to extract financial penalty from the Defendants (although the claim for damages remains) but to establish the falsity of their allegations and to obtain an injunction. At the same time, we have always recognised that, as the Defendants themselves have stated publicly on numerous occasions, they are apparently 'unwaged' and without means.
20. With regard to the use of the letter from Greenpeace Limited the position is as follows. Our communications department understood that they could refer to this letter publicly and thus it was attached to the first Press Briefing in February 1994. As soon as Greenpeace Limited notified us of their objection to its use in our communications with the media, no further copies were distributed.
21. With regard to the Defendants' involvement in London Greenpeace, from everything that I have heard and seen (including witnessing the Defendants demonstrating outside McDonald's head office) I believed then and believe now that they have been prominent members of the group and closely involved in its campaign against McDonald's, including responsibility for organising demonstrations and anti-McDonald's fayres. If, as I was told, they were denying this, I believed then and believe now that this is not only false but inconsistent with their conduct throughout the litigation.
June 3, 1993|
|supplementary statement signed:||
February 12, 1994|
|2nd supplementary statement signed:||
March 24, 1994|
|3rd supplementary statement signed:||
March 8, 1996|
Appeared in court|
exhibits: Not applicable/ available
transcripts of court appearances: