Following on from our blog two weeks ago about Andrew Mitchell’s libel case, we thought it would be a good idea to examine the longest case in history, which happens to be a libel case. The case, commonly referred to as the ‘McLibel case’, involved McDonalds suing two green activists, David Morris and Helen Steel, over a pamphlet criticising McDonalds, particularly in relation to their ethical credentials.
The whole case was a Public relations disaster for McDonalds, who pursued the defendants for 10 years, making this the longest running case in English legal history and one that is most likely to retain this title in light of the Jackson reforms. McDonalds ‘won’ the case and after 10 years obtained a judgment ordering the defendants to pay £40,000 in damages and the McDonalds costs, which dwarfed the damages awarded. The defendants had no means to pay this amount of money and McDonalds never pursued them for it, most likely because throughout the whole ten years the case had been a highly publicised disaster for them. Arguably, Steel and Morris’ campaign was insignificant compared to the controversy arising out of McDonalds pursuing their claim.
The defendants relied on a great deal of pro bono help, which came in the form of Keir Starmer, now a QC and until recently, the Director of Public Prosecutions. Steel and Morris ultimately ended up taking this case to the European Court of Human Rights and contended that the lack of legal aid in libel cases denied them the right to a fair trial and freedom of expression. The European Court of Human Rights ruled in their favour and held that their right to a fair trial was infringed because of oppressive English libel laws and the lack of legal aid. They also ruled that protection should be afforded to people wishing to criticise corporations whose operations affect the environment and lives of the public.
It is unlikely a case like this will ever grace the English courts again in light of the Jackson reforms, or at least if one does, it won’t last anywhere near as long. With the new overriding interest under CPR 1.1 it would be hard to see this case being allowed to continue as it did; the costs were not proportionate to the amount claimed, the parties were not on an even footing and the case was not dealt with expeditiously or fairly.
It is likely this case will now be entrenched in English legal history because such a case will not be allowed to progress this far ever again. Modern lawyers should tip their hats to the parties in this case for generating the most fascinating case our legal system has ever seen, that developed interest, controversy and debate.
