Day 251 - 17 May 96 - Page 34
1 whatever the evidence since, they cannot rely on what might
2 have gone into that amendment.
3
4 MR. RAMPTON: You never said that. What I believe your Lordship
5 said at the time was, since they have not a scintilla of
6 evidence to support an allegation of direct effect, they
7 could not have the amendment. The only problem I would
8 have -- well, there are two problems. First I would not
9 consent to my amendment which I had not first seen and
10 decided whether to argue. Secondly, I am a little bit
11 wary. I will have to wait and see what is said and I
12 believe it would have to be quite cleverly, or I should say
13 carefully perhaps, worded in the light of Miss Branford's
14 evidence, if it is to overcome the problem. I would have a
15 difficulty perhaps in dealing with it, because it has never
16 been, and it is not now, part of the Defendant's case that
17 McDonald's have been in any sense responsible for direct
18 destruction of rain forests in Brazil.
19
20 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I am sorry to interrupt you, that is not the
21 particular point which I have in mind. The particular
22 point which the Defendants sought was as follows:
23 Brazilian beef, some originally from cattle raised on ex
24 rain forest land or raised in regions causing the
25 displacement of farmers into Amazon rain forest areas has
26 been supplied to McDonald's, including McDonald's UK.
27
28 I did not allow it in that form. It then went on into some
29 more detail. The form I allowed was: Brazilian beef,
30 raised in regions causing the displacement of farmers into
31 Amazon forest areas has been supplied to McDonald's in
32 Brazil and to McDonald's UK. In other words, I did not
33 allow that part of the amendment sought which said
34 "Brazilian beef" and then these are the important words
35 "some originally from cattle raised on ex rain forest
36 land".
37
38 MR. RAMPTON: You did not, no. That is quite right.
39
40 MR. JUSTICE BELL: This morning I have heard evidence which, if
41 it had been in a statement form in July 1995, might well
42 have caused me to reach a different view as to whether that
43 amendment should have been allowed. The reason I am
44 raising it now is, if it is going to be said for instance
45 -- let me put it this way, were I to draw the conclusion
46 from a combination of what I know from Senor Morganti's
47 civil evidence act statements and what I have heard from
48 Miss Branford this morning, that some of the beef which
49 went to Braslo came from cattle raised on ex rain forest
50 land, that is in the areas, let us say, down in the general
51 area of the river she mentioned, the Araguaia River, what I
52 want to know is whether a point would be taken: Yes, but
53 the Defendants cannot rely on that because they do not have
54 a pleading to cover it.
55
56 MR. RAMPTON: No, certainly not. I would never take that
57 point. The much more serious point I might take is that I
58 have not dealt with it. I have dealt with it in
59 cross-examination, I know what I think the position is and
60 to say now that I do not think such an amendment would
