Day 083 - 06 Feb 95 - Page 57


     
     1        certainly cannot speculate that it was a case of food
     2        poisoning or even potential food poisoning.  If I am asked
     3        simply to say "yea" or "nay" did this incident happen in
     4        the terms described in the Mail on Sunday as a matter of
     5        literal fact, if it is so, then it is very likely I will
     6        say, yes, of course it did.  But one questions where that
     7        leads one.
     8
     9        If, on the other hand, the Defendants want to build
    10        inferences on what is asserted in this about McDonald's
    11        procedures about the safety of their food and so on, what
    12        is alleged in this newspaper article, then they must tell
    13        us what they are before I can know whether I am to admit it
    14        or make discovery and fight it.
    15
    16   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  But in those respects it is just the same as
    17        the allegations which are in tab 5, is it not?
    18
    19   MR. RAMPTON:  No, my Lord.  Take Preston, for example.  That was
    20        a case in which a number of people did actually suffer
    21        illness in consequence of the food they ate.  It was quite
    22        different.
    23
    24   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  It may be different in that respect, but it
    25        is the same in the respect of you saying, "Right, so what
    26        is the allegation against McDonald's in that respect?"
    27
    28   MR. RAMPTON:  We did ask that in relation to Preston and we were
    29        told.  Then we got I think a reamended pleading for Preston
    30        saying how serious it all was, what a terrible thing, in
    31        effect, lots of people suffered serious food poisoning, and
    32        we were wrapped over the knuckles by the public health
    33        people and so on.  We said that we are not inclined to
    34        litigate that in the context of this case and, therefore,
    35        we admitted it.  What this tells one as a matter of
    36        relevance to this case I just do not know at the moment.
    37
    38   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  If there is salmonella in there, heavens
    39        knows what the truth of the situation was, but that is
    40        maybe part of the point of getting discovery.  They sold
    41        something which was under-cooked.
    42
    43   MR. RAMPTON:  My Lord, I understand that.
    44
    45   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  That is criticism, is it not?
    46
    47   MR. RAMPTON:  Of course it is a criticism, because if it had not
    48        been there would not have been salmonella there. If it goes
    49        that far this is an allegation I can answer on its face.
    50 
    51   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I am not suggesting you are taking legal 
    52        points just for the sake of it, but what happens then?  The 
    53        Defendants go away.  Having listened to this debate they
    54        plead some of the information in the Mail on Sunday
    55        article.  Having listened to what you have said they have
    56        twigged that they must not just say "salmonella" but
    57        "under-cooked", must get that word in.
    58
    59   MR. RAMPTON:  Obviously, yes.
    60

Prev Next Index