Day 164 - 26 Sep 95 - Page 07
1
2 MR. JUSTICE BELL: It seems to me I cannot put the possibility
3 of discovery completely on one side at the moment, because
4 in the exercise of my discretion I have to contemplate how
5 much work might be involved for what result, but you carry
6 on anyway.
7
8 MR. MORRIS: Yes. I do not think the discovery issue should be
9 used as a means of refusing any valid relevant amendment.
10 The nature of the discovery is the next issue to be dealt
11 with after an amendment properly served has been allowed,
12 and the extent of that discovery or, of course, it could be
13 dealt with by admission -----
14
15 MR. JUSTICE BELL: One of the factors I would have to consider,
16 putting it in ordinary lay terms, is whether and if so what
17 discovery was reasonable in all the circumstances.
18
19 MR. MORRIS: Yes. The point about the Store Hygiene matters is
20 that they are all within a limited period of time in one
21 particular town. McDonald's has said repeatedly and given
22 evidence to the fact that they have a pretty uniform
23 system, kitchen system, and attitude in their stores. A
24 snap shot of one particular area at a particular time can
25 be an indication that the amount of evidence which they
26 have presented to the court about their, what I would say,
27 near perfection and claims of dedication to hygiene matters
28 may not actually be the reality on the ground.
29
30 So, if any matters relevant to hygiene and certainly
31 citations from the authorities must be relevant -- I have
32 lost my train of thought -- if hygiene matters, apart from
33 a very strictly limited question of -- no, I will move on
34 from that.
35
36 Just one point which applies to all the documents:
37 I believe we served the documents in March 1995 -- that is
38 my recollection -- but I was expected to plead them before
39 we could deal with them, the hygiene ones that was.
40 I think the ones on employment we did not serve because we
41 were -- I do not know if we served them or not -- we
42 brought them to court and I think the situation is that the
43 Plaintiffs did not want to see them because there was some
44 debate with a legal argument about whether we should put
45 them or not put them.
46
47 In the end it was decided we should put them to Mr. Stein.
48 So the Plaintiffs did have plenty of notice of what our
49 allegations were because we put them to Mr. Stein. I think
50 that is a small point because what ever happened in March
51 they are now on the table for consideration.
52
53 If I can move on to the employment conditions section?
54
55 MR. JUSTICE BELL: It is a very small point, but looking at the
56 Washington Post, it is 11th June 1995, and the dates are
57 31st May to 1st June. So, presumably, it should be 1995,
58 not 1994?
59
60 MR. MORRIS: That is absolutely correct.
