Day 098 - 07 Mar 95 - Page 65


     
     1   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  It is not at Mr. Rampton's personal door.  He
     2        has a lot to cope with just as you have a lot to cope
     3        with.  If I might say, Mr. Rampton, I think someone has to
     4        do a bit of shoving.
     5
     6   MR. RAMPTON:  Yes.  I am now told that Mr. Walker has said there
     7        is no problem about it.  He is perfectly willing. It is
     8        just that he has not yet organised it.  We shall have to
     9        shovel on the telephone tonight to see where we get to.
    10
    11   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I would be extremely grateful if he or one of
    12        his executives could move things along.
    13
    14   MR. MORRIS:  Really the last thing is not so much urgency but of
    15        substance.  It is the soya matter which was maybe our
    16        misunderstanding when we made the application that we did
    17        not refer you to the statement of McDonald's own witness.
    18
    19   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Which witness are you talking about?
    20
    21   MR. MORRIS:  This is Hans Schum.
    22
    23   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I read both his statements carefully.  I was
    24        not asked to in court.  Mr. Rampton referred to them, so
    25        I read them both through, and it is upon the basis of what
    26        I got from them that I said what I did from page 13
    27        onwards, particularly page 14.
    28
    29   MR. MORRIS:  As far as the matter of the McDonald's Germany is
    30        concerned, in your Ruling you specified whether the
    31        documents in the possession, custody or power of
    32        Raeiffeisen or L&O Fleischwaren would not be in the
    33        possession, custody or power of either Plaintiff.  You did
    34        not specify that the problem was McDonald's Germany.
    35
    36   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Read that in as well then for the purpose of
    37        this, because it does not help you to say I did not mention
    38        if the fact is that even if McDonald's Germany had them
    39        that does not amount to being in the power of the First or
    40        Second Plaintiff.
    41
    42   MR. MORRIS:  If that is the sticking point, then I think (maybe
    43        now is not the time to make it) an application should be
    44        made for a trial within a trial.
    45
    46   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  It is not the only sticking point.  That
    47        might become the sticking point if you get into the air so
    48        far as passing Lord Justice Neill's test for having a
    49        sufficient case.  I know a reference to soya has been
    50        pleaded and not taken exception to since the Court of 
    51        Appeal, but the fact is I am not likely to think it is 
    52        necessary for the fair disposal of the action to order what 
    53        might be either extensive discovery or extensive enquiry
    54        with a view to discovery, unless I think you have some real
    55        basis for making the allegation.  Unless you have got real
    56        evidence to support a case that Brazilian soya is used to
    57        feed cattle which become McDonald's beef patties, you do
    58        not get started.  That is what I am suggesting to you,
    59        quite regardless of any question of whether any documents
    60        are in the custody, possession or power.  That is what

Prev Next Index