Day 083 - 06 Feb 95 - Page 49
1
2 MR. MORRIS: That is actually what I was going to go on to
3 next. That is exactly the point I was going to make, that
4 the Plaintiffs are relying on those disclosed documents and
5 that information and evidence to say that they have had no
6 imported beef in the USA. But the years particularly
7 pleaded were 1979, 1983 and 1984 and we had asked for
8 documents, effectively, from the 1980s. It is our case
9 that if the Plaintiffs ever had a policy it emanates from
10 1989 when they put their corporate policy statement in.
11 Effectively, the years that we have pleaded are the
12 important years. If the Plaintiffs, as Mr. Rampton has
13 just said, are relying on information from 1989, they
14 should be ordered at least to provide a list of suppliers.
15 I do not believe they will be able to provide the same sort
16 of documentation as they provided in 1989 because we do not
17 believe that the suppliers were asked to sign the
18 equivalent forms earlier than 1989, but if we had a list of
19 suppliers which would be a one-page document or a two-page
20 document, then at least we could make our own enquires.
21 Obviously, any documentation above the list would be
22 helpful as well in terms of whether they sign documents or
23 provide the sources of their supplies to McDonald's,
24 related to the issue of imported beef in the USA.
25
26 MR. RAMPTON: Again, my Lord, I find this, if I may respond now,
27 it may be convenient, quite extraordinary. We have
28 disclosed specifications, with obviously some years
29 missing, from I think about 1967. Mr. Walker produced two
30 the other day, 1978 and 1979. The meat specifications we
31 have disclosed run all through the 80s.
32
33 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I think it is the list of suppliers now.
34
35 MR. RAMPTON: My Lord, yes, but all the specifications say
36 "absolutely prohibited any imported beef", and each of the
37 specifications has a form at the back to be signed by the
38 supplier. This may be a relevant question. I am not
39 suggesting it is an irrelevant question. The real question
40 is whether a trawl of the names of the suppliers is going
41 to assist the progress of this case. The idea, I suppose,
42 will be that the Defendants ask your Lordship for a
43 six-month adjournment while they trot round the United
44 States asking each of the suppliers in turn whether their
45 signature on that document is truthful or not. That is an
46 exaggerated way of putting it obviously, but really I do
47 wonder whether this is going to advance the matter in any
48 way at all.
49
50 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I have no hint that an adjournment will be
51 asked for. What are the sorts of enquiries you might like
52 to make in relation to those which would help in relation
53 to an issue in the case?
54
55 MR. MORRIS: McDonald's have brought in as evidence Civil
56 Evidence Act documents as to 1989. We do not even know if
57 that is a comprehensive list of all their suppliers for
58 1989. We have a witness, for example Mr. Douglas Chane on
59 on the US labelling policy of beef, and he should be
60 entitled to check out from his personal knowledge or
