Day 083 - 06 Feb 95 - Page 39


     
     1        reason for that is that by constant pressure for proper
     2        particulars, the Defendants were eventually driven before
     3        the late Master Grant on 6th November 1991 to state
     4        expressly that their case under this head of the Defence
     5        was limited to Industria De Ganaderos Guatemaltecos which
     6        is the Guatemala packing plant and another one -- sorry,
     7        that is at a place in Guatemala, and to Montecillos
     8        Co-operative in Costa Rica.  That has remained the position
     9        from that day in November 1991 until this day in February
    10        1995.
    11
    12   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Except that it has been discovered since then
    13        that there is the 80 tonnes to this country.
    14
    15   MR. RAMPTON:  My Lord, on the pleadings, that is the beginning
    16        and the end of the Defendants' case and, therefore, the
    17        beginning and the end of the Plaintiffs' obligation for
    18        discovery in relation to the rainforest question, Costa
    19        Rica and Guatemala, for those given years.  That arises, as
    20        I say, from the Defendants' own express statement that
    21        their case was so limited; a position which they have not
    22        changed to this day apart from the windfall, if I can call
    23        it that, of the Vesty letter about Brazil.
    24
    25        But they, being Defendants justifying a libel, must find a
    26        sensible or reasonable basis, whether first, second or
    27        third hand, for what they now seek to allege about Brazil.
    28        So, far they have nothing.  They are not entitled to
    29        achieve something better than nothing by trawling the
    30        Plaintiffs' files for discovery.
    31
    32        It matters not that Dr. Gomez Gonzales said that he did not
    33        know about the 80 tonnes.  It matters not that David Walker
    34        for reasons of his own -- he certainly was not asked --
    35        volunteered some documents relevant to that Brazilian
    36        shipment.  The Defendants have no foundation at all  -- and
    37        the Court of Appeal did not say that no foundation at all
    38        was the basis for discovery -- for a case against the
    39        Plaintiffs in relation to Brazil.
    40
    41        My Lord, that said, I would submit with some emphasis that
    42        the ruling your Lordship made (and which I acceded to;
    43        perhaps I should not have done) on 20th December in
    44        relation to Brazil was the limit of it.  We agreed, or your
    45        Lordship ordered -- never mind, it is done now, though
    46        I suppose, as the Defendants would, I might ask your
    47        Lordship to review that decision, but I will not -- we have
    48        accepted that we have to try see if McDonald's in Brazil or
    49        anywhere else have any documents relevant to the question:
    50        Where did those Vesty shipments come from? 
    51 
    52        But, my Lord, beyond that there is no basis on which we can 
    53        be asked to make a further discovery in relation to Brazil
    54        at any time.  The Defendants have not made (and cannot make
    55        because they do not have the materials on which to make it)
    56        any positive allegation about the Plaintiffs' use of beef
    57        from Brazil, whether in Brazil or outside Brazil.  It is no
    58        good Mr. Morris or Ms. Steel standing up and mouthing what
    59        one might call "environmental generalities"; that will not
    60        do.  What they have to do is to assert with materials a

Prev Next Index