The McLibel Case Lawsuit - Report Example

MCLIBEL DOCUMENTARY: INDIVIDUAL WRITTEN EXAMINATION Part The McLibel case lawsuit is the English libel that was filed by the McDonald’s Corporation against the environmental activists David Morris and Helen over a pamphlet critical of the company. Among the two hearings in the courts of England, it was found that some of the contested leaflet claims to be libelous, while others were true. It was after the partial victory of the David-Goliath nature that subsequently drew a litigation embarrassment of the McDonald’s Company. The McLibel case is among the longest legal battles that the world has ever witnessed, and equally one of the trickiest court engagement of the McDonald’s company since it was started many decades ago. The case against the line of business of the McDonald’s Corporation was that the type of foods that were offered by the company had long term negative effects to the general health of people. The case that was initiated in 1986 was later resolved in the year 2005, almost two decades of active legal engagement (Mallin 2009, p. 58). The legal issues that surround the entire case is about the use of McDonald’s use of the use of genetically modified products in regard to concerns of health, as well as legal aspects in relation to freedom of speech of the accusers of the case. Part 2 The McLibel Case entails the use of defamation law, which is commonly used as a regulation of business creations, as well as the applicability European law and human rights, and was used in the case that involved the McDonald’s Corporation and the two individuals; Steel and Morris. The case was famously referred to as a classic David and Goliath representation, owing to the fact that the McDonalds spend about 10 million pounds suing two broke unrepresented defendants, who were a gardener and a postal worker of combine income of only 12,000 pounds. The case is commonly seen as a legal intimidation of two poor fellows who belonged to the lower economic class. The typical allegation of this case was that the McDonalds Corporation allegedly purchased beef from cows that had been reared on a recently cleared rainforest piece of land. Later in 1986, a fact sheet that questioned almost everything about the business of the McDonalds Company alleged that the company was a threat to animal liberation and ecology (Bermingham & Brennan, 2012, p. 34). The allegation further stated that McDonalds promoted an unhealthy diet, ill-treatment of animals, destruction of rainforests, being completely responsible for the environmental damage, and exploiting their staff. In a responsive move, the McDonalds Corporation hired private investigators to subsequently infiltrate the group that made such allegation and equally discover how the group operated, as well as the individuals behind it. The groups to be behind the allegations was stated to be the London Greenpeace Unincorporated, hence the individuals behind such allegation that threatened to crumble the entire business empire of McDonalds had to be identified. McDonalds hired two reputable investigative agencies without letting them know each other on their specified assignment (Bermingham & Brennan, 2012, p. 34). Therefore, the investigation involved two agencies that were assigned on a similar duty, but did not know of each other existence in the investigative process, hence they concurrently ran their operations independently and more effectively. By 1990, the investigations found out five individuals were behind the business hurting compliments that almost destroyed the reputation of McDonalds Company. Three of the five individuals apologized and were removed from the legal battled. The two individuals who decided to fight on were Helen and Dave. The two persons formed the basis for the longest legal battle that McDonald Corporation had ever been involved in since it was started and penetrated across different regions in the European region. McDonalds maintained that everything that was in the leaflet was libelous against the company, including full range of problems such as working conditions, animal and environment harm and that McDonalds foods were linked to unhealthy and poor diet (Vidal 1998, p. 65). Both Dave and Helen had to subsequently provide a proof of their allegations. Throughout the 1990s, the case entered into a stalemate as there were not significant breakthroughs that were being reached to create a room for settlement. However, the case did not start until the June of 1994, as the period before they involved a long pre-trial process as Dave and Helen sought witness statements from all over the world. The case was highly complex and involved scientific evidence, among other complicated parameters. There were attempts by the McDonalds to settle the case out of court, although Dave and Helen were adamant to their conditions. The very first attempt for a settlement, two months after the case had initiated, where two senior presidents of the Company offered to drop the charges against the two individuals on certain conditions. The settlement, together with other attempts that were conducted in 1995 were unsuccessful as the stalemate made the case to be the longest in British History. The complicated legal battle attracted the European Court and the effort to exercise the European law was subsequently being sought. However, this was not evident until the September of 2000, when both Dave and Helen launched action against UK Government at Strasberg’s European Court - Human Rights. In this instance, the entire proceeding was to be subjected to the European law in relation to the primary issues that emerged between the two conflicting parties. By February of 2005, the Human Rights Court subsequently declared the case of McLibel as solely a breach of the rights of individuals to a fair trial, as well as freedoms of expression (Schlosser 2012, p. 64). The Court was clear that the laws of the UK had failed to completely protect the rights of the public to criticize corporations, with businesses that affected people’s health and lives as well as the environment. McDonalds Corporation was eventually ordered to pay for damaged caused to both Dave and Helen, which totaled to 10 million pounds. The McLibel case falls in the SLAPPs category of cases that individuals face against corporations. The Strategic lawsuits against public participation, SLAPPs is defined as a counterclaim or civil complain that aims recovering money damages filed against a citizen or a group of citizen who are targeted for their actions of communication to the general public for public interest. The decision by the two individuals formed the basis for the corporations desire to interfere with the freedoms of speech, of ordinary citizens who have genuine concerns of the products and services of the particular company (Bermingham & Brennan, 2012, p. 34). The concept of a SLAPP is well applicable in the entire case whether the two individuals filed a case to the European Law Court over their rights being violated by the McDonald’s corporation as well as the UK Laws. SLAPP is identified as a legal mechanism that addresses defamation, business torts, process violations, conspiracy. Civil rights or constitutional violations, and other violations that may include emotional harm, trespass or nuisance. The case of Dave and Helen against McDonalds Corporation form the basis for SLAPP classic illustration. The main reason that the case filed by Dave and Helen can be classified under the SLAPPs is that based on them as a target who eventually solved the issue surrounding them. It is essential to acknowledge that SLAPPs does not target either radical environmentalists or professional activists. It is being generally made to target ordinary middle class people concerned with the environment around them, and with no history of political activity (Behan 2009, p. 46). Usually, the typical SLAPP is commonly for profit business operation suing small non-profit groups or individual citizens with idealistic views as opposed to the economic views. The European law utilized the SLAPP features in order to reach a decidable verdict, terminating a case that had been in process for almost two decades. The European court used the SLAPPs features to intervene in the conflict that had lasted the longest time in the British history. The legal interpretation of the European law has the following features: power imbalance, cost of litigation and legal aid. The power imbalance at this point involves the European court acceptance to take the case of private individuals versus a corporation. Both Dave and Helen present the private individuals who are rather poor, as they are faced with a legal battle with a relative rich McDonalds Corporation. Under the SLAPPs features as offered by the European law, the cost of litigation is extremely expensive for private individuals seeking justice to afford (Behan 2009, p. 46). The European law provides an avenue for ordinary citizens with genuine issues to use the services of the court with the aid of the European court. The defamation cases are usually very complex, and therefore do not conclude quickly. The McLibel case presents a perfect example of a defamation case, as the two ordinary civilians fought to ensure that their rights were safeguarded. Elements of defamation were evident from the McLibel case in the essence that statements of the two individual directly injure the reputation of the McDonalds Corporation and subsequently exposing the company to hatred contempt. On the other hand, elements of defamation are evident from case Dave and Helen presented to the European Court in the essence that the McDonald Corporation was a company that intended to lower their individual estimation of right thinking in the society (Vidal 1998, p. 65). However, such elements of defamation should be proved in each case to ascertain validity of the allegations implicated on each party. The law of defamation in this case is based on proving the allegations made by the two individuals against the McDonalds Corporation. The allegations that were justified in this case were about nutrition and advertising, while the issue of the environment as asserted by Dave and Helen was not justified as true. Issued of exploitation of McDonald’s employees was also not justified as true allegation as made by the two individuals. However, it was found to be true that McDonald’s corporations are responsible for some of the cruel practices used in animals that are reared for food production. In the two incidences that were unjustified during the trials in the European Court had the damages reduced on the McDonalds favor. The compared was found reliable for causing damages upon Dave and Helen and was thus requested to pay damages worth 10 million pounds. The legislation as delivered by the European court was seen to have a great impact to the general functioning of companies. Although the two individuals were awarded damage fees for their unfair trial in the UK, the McDonalds Corporation was not on the losing end either. Although it was forced to pay the two individuals on the intervention of the European law, the company was not shut down and thus, it is still operational serving over 60 million people on an average day in different parts of the world. However, the company was forced to subsequently increase wages and equally improve the conditions of the equipment used in all its branches (Burnett & Games 2007, p. 28). This shows the effect of the legal system on companies and the influence that it can also have on not only business, but also on the general and ordinary citizens in any part of the world. After the long case between Dave and Helen versus McDonald Corporation, there were various changes on acts, particularly in the defamation act. The most influential was the changes of the defamation act 2013. This was aimed at reforming the law of defamation to ensure that a fair balance is usually struck between the freedoms of expression and the right to protect reputation. The key areas in this change if act was the inclusion of a requirement for claimants to subsequently show that they have suffered enough or serious harm before taking the action to sue for defamation. It also removed the issue of current presumption in favor of the jury trial. The change also provided an increased protection of individuals who operate websites that typically hot user generated content, provided they comply with procedure to enable the specific complainant to resolve disputes directly with the authors of the affected material (Burnett & Games 2007, p. 28). The new changes in the act also introduced new statutory defenses of honesty and truth opinion to subsequently replace the common law defense of fair and justified comment. In conclusion, it can be speculated that the case of Dave and Helen versus the McDonalds Corporation had an effect of the 2013 acts changes. This is due to the fact that the change of the defamation act was subsequently viewed to have had its basis of argument largely dependent on the McLibel case, which took nearly 20 years, particularly due to mixed interpretation of the law. The new act would direct provide tow defenses that Helen and Dave tried to use at some instance. The second section of the 2013 would subsequently mean that McDonalds would have to show that their company had suffered losses due to the allegations. Section 4 of this act would also provide support for the defense that the circulated leaflet was published in the prime interest of offending those parties that are not able to defend themselves, such as animals and children (Hile 2004, p. 57). The case is considered as one of the most influential in arriving at the current changes in the defamation act as it was affected in 2013. The case remains phenomenal in all aspects of legislation, as well as the place of ordinary people in regard to their rights and freedoms of expression. Bibliography Bermingham, V., & Brennan, C. (2012). Tort law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Behan, N. (2009). How to run your own court case: A practical guide to representing yourself in Australian courts and tribunals. Sydney: Redfern Lega Centre. Burnett, T., & Games, A. (2007). Who really runs the world?: [the war between globalization and democracy]. New York: Disinformation. Hile, K. (2004). Animal rights. Philadelphia: Chelsea House. Mallin, C. A. (2009). Corporate social responsibility: A case study approach. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Schlosser, E. (2012). Fast food nation: The dark side of the all-American meal. Boston: MarinerBooks/Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Vidal, J. (1998). McLibel. London: Pan. Read More