McDonald's Corporation v Steel and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 25 March 1994 |
| Date | 25 March 1994 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Court of Appeal
Before Lord Justice Neill, Lord Justice Steyn and Lord Justice Peter Gibson
Practice - defamation action - striking out particulars of justification and fair comment - power to be used in clear cases
In considering whether or not to allow an interlocutory application by the plaintiff in a defamation action to strike out parts of the defence, particulars of justification and fair comment, it was necessary to determine whether the defendant's case in relation to a given passage was incurably bad since the power to strike out was a draconian one to be used only in clear and obvious cases.
The Court of Appeal so held in a reserved judgment in allowing an appeal brought by the defendants, Helen Marie Steel and David Morris, against the order of Mr Justice Bell who on November 15, 1993 struck out parts of their defence in an action for defamation brought by the plaintiffs, McDonald's Corporation and McDonald's Restaurants Ltd.
Mr Patrick Milmo, QC, and Mr David Sherborne for the defendants; Mr Richard Rampton, QC and Mr Timothy Atkinson for McDonald's.
LORD JUSTICE NEILL said that on various dates between October 1989 and April 1990 the defendants with others published and distributed a leaflet entitled "What's wrong with McDonald's?".
The writ was issued on September 20, 1990 and on November 16 the defendants served their defence setting out pleas of justification and fair comment. Many interlocutory applications followed.
On September 30, McDonald's applied to strike out parts of the defence and parts of the particulars of justification and fair comment. On November 2, Mr Justice Bell accepted the plaintiffs' submission that the striking out application should be decided before the application for further discovery.
On November 15, the judge struck out substantial parts of the defendants' pleadings and made an order striking out other parts unless witness statements containing admissible evidence to support those passages were served within specified times.
The appeal raised questions of difficulty and importance. On the one hand reliance could be placed on the principle that it was in the public interest that litigation should be conducted as expeditiously and economically as possible and that at the trial the evidence should be directed to what was truly at issue.
On the other hand it could be argued that the procedure adopted in the present...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kenny D. Anthony Plaintiff v Peter Josie Defendant [ECSC]
...maliciously spoke and published of and concerning the Plaintiff', ought to be and it is ordered that the said words be struck out. In McDonald's Corp. v. Steel (1995) 3 AER 615 it was held by the Court of Appeal of England that — 80 (1) A plea of justification to a libel action was not requ......
-
Lord Ashcroft Kcmg v Stephen Foley and Others
...(and remains) proper to plead a defence of justification. I prefer in this context to be guided by the judgment of Neill LJ in McDonald's Corporation v Steel [1995] 3 All ER 615. 17 The pleaders are entitled to exercise a professional judgment about what may be relied upon in support of a p......
-
Gleaner Company Ltd and Dudley Stokes v Abrahams (Eric Anthony)
...pleaded unless the "defendants had clear and sufficient evidence of the truth of the imputation". However, in the case of McDonald's Corp. and Another v Steel & Ors [1995] 3 All E.R. 615 the English Court of Appeal held that a plea of justification was not required to be supported by clear......
- Tjanting Handicraft Sdn Bhd v Utusan Melayu (M) Sdn Bhd
-
Defamation Actions to Avoid
...£40,000. 1 8 CANADIA N LIBE L AN D SLANDE R ACTION S accessed 19 February 2004. accessed 19 February 2004. McDonalds Corp. v. Steel, [1995] 3 All E.R. 615, varied, [1999] E.WJ. No. 2173 (C.A.). Guided by the experience of McDonald's, a prospective libel plaintiff may give very careful consi......