Day 053 - 22 Nov 94 - Page 25
1 I find that hard to believe. Someone of Mr. Rampton's
2 experience, when he took over this case from Mr. Shields,
3 must have read the pleadings; and if he considers that they
4 are badly pleaded now, then he must have realised it then.
5
6 The fact is that they are only concerned to change their
7 pleadings because we have proved what was initially pleaded
8 by them in the Statement of Claim.
9
10 If Mr. Rampton thinks it has clearly been his case that it
11 was "cause" since he took over in July last year, why did
12 he not apply to amend then?
13
14 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Whatever else you may say, do you want me to
15 take the skeleton argument as part of your oral argument?
16
17 MS. STEEL: Yes, please. I was going to go through parts of it.
18
19 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Save in so far as you may say -- and I have
20 not checked whether you have -- anything positively
21 different.
22
23 MS. STEEL: I do not think I have said anything different.
24
25 Maybe if we turn to the skeleton argument. As we say in
26 paragraph 1, this is a very late application, four years
27 after the writ was issued and even several months after the
28 beginning of the trial.
29
30 As I just referred to, in my opening speech, it was clear
31 that we thought that the issue was "link", if Mr. Rampton
32 thought it was something different at that stage, then he
33 should have applied to amend his case at that point, or
34 made his application for us to amend our meaning at that
35 point. He should not have left it until this late stage,
36 when all the Plaintiffs' witnesses on nutrition have
37 already been called and given evidence, and ours have been
38 called, as well, and were not prepared on the basis of just
39 being causal link.
40
41 We have been into this already, but we do reiterate that
42 the amendments that are proposed do fundamentally alter the
43 nature and basis of the Plaintiffs' case and of what would
44 be the issues in the action.
45
46 As it says, there have not been any recent developments
47 which should lead to a need to amend, other than the fact
48 that the Plaintiffs' witnesses have agreed with our
49 contentions on the links between diet and disease.
50
51 On the following page, with reference to Ketteman v. Hansel
52 Properties [1987] 1 AC 189, talking about allowing an
53 amendment to clarify the issues in dispute, clearly, we are
54 saying that this is not an amendment to clarify the issues
55 in dispute; this is an amendment to fundamentally change
56 the nature of the Plaintiffs' case and, for that reason, it
57 should not be allowed at this late stage.
58
59 Going on to the second paragraph, Lord Griffiths is
60 quoted:
