Day 083 - 06 Feb 95 - Page 52


     
     1
     2   MR. MORRIS:  I do not think it is for no purpose.  I think it is
     3        for an extremely important part of the case.  I think
     4        everybody in this court would recognise that we feel very
     5        strongly about this issue.
     6
     7   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I appreciate that, but why not make some
     8        enquiry of the 1989 list to say, "Were you supplying in
     9        1979, 1983 or 1984"?
    10
    11   MR. MORRIS:  That I had not thought of, but the point was it is
    12        our belief that the mid-80s are the most relevant years.
    13        The documents disclosed with the so-called Duke of
    14        Edinburgh dispute were maybe from 15 suppliers, but they
    15        may have had 100 replies from different suppliers and only
    16        put in the 15 that satisfied them, that conformed with any
    17        policy they are now claiming.
    18
    19        We can contact the 1989 suppliers but, really, what we need
    20        is a list, and preferably documentation from the years
    21        pleaded in the case.  It is possible McDonald's did change
    22        their policy in 1989, effectively.  I do not know, but
    23        certainly they should provide a list of the relevant years
    24        if, as they have done, they are going to rely on Civil
    25        Evidence Act documents at a later date.  If I phone up the
    26        suppliers and say "Hello, this is Dave Morris from London
    27        Greenpeace, we are in a dispute with McDonald's", they are
    28        hardly going to give me information that conflicts ----
    29
    30   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Well, does that not apply to 1979, 1983 and
    31        1984 once you have a list?
    32
    33   MS. STEEL:   We would not make the enquiries with the
    34        companies.  We would be making them with other people who
    35        have done research into that area.
    36
    37   MR. MORRIS:  Yes.  There may be knowledge that is in the public
    38        realm, but I think the court can be rest assured that if we
    39        do a list or any information from the 1980s or 1979 it will
    40        be followed up.
    41
    42   MR. RAMPTON:  My Lord, there is a list of main suppliers for
    43        1983 to be found at tab 52.
    44
    45   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  If I may just think allowed, Mr. Rampton.
    46        The situation maybe this, that if there are any relevant
    47        documents in the First or Second Plaintiffs' custody,
    48        possession or power in relation to those years, then they
    49        should have been disclosed and it is reasonable to infer,
    50        if they have not been, that they do not exist.  When one 
    51        comes on to lists of suppliers, that is a request which 
    52        would really be the subject of an interrogatory.  It is not 
    53        at the moment, but the reality of the situation is if
    54        Mr. Cesca comes into the witness box in July no list having
    55        been supplied and the Defendants say, "Who was supplying
    56        you in 1979, 1983 or 1984", that is a question he should
    57        answer.  If I am right about that, the last thing we want
    58        is that information appearing for the first time in July,
    59        is it not?
    60

Prev Next Index