Day 163 - 25 Sep 95 - Page 42
1 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Thank you for that, but it was not put by the
2 Defendants to any witness.
3
4 MR. RAMPTON: No.
5
6 MR. MORRIS: It might have been put to Dr. Clark but, of course,
7 the Plaintiffs did not call him.
8
9 MR. RAMPTON: Mr. Morris knows the answer to that. He still has
10 the option to call Mr. Clark himself. He knows that.
11
12 MR. MORRIS: Mr. North is still to give further evidence.
13
14 MR. JUSTICE BELL: We must take the arguments in their proper
15 order. Yes?
16
17 MR. RAMPTON: Flies and mouse droppings, my Lord, I find
18 repeatedly in these pleadings. I would say that, as a
19 generality, they are new. I also say, as I said a moment
20 ago -- I know I am repeating myself -- they really do not
21 have any bearing on the issues raised by the leaflet which
22 is the subject of this action. It simply is not right at
23 this stage in the case anyway to make us litigate these
24 questions. Even supposing we did and it turned out that
25 the Defendants are right about half of them, I ask the
26 rhetorical question: Really, in the end what, even if half
27 or three-quarters of these allegations were proved after
28 another two or three weeks of additional litigation,
29 significance would that have for your Lordship's ultimate
30 decision in the case on the issue of food poisoning?
31
32 My Lord, I turn to Employment Conditions. Most of what
33 I said about Store Hygiene I repeat in relation to these
34 alleged violations of child labour law. I will have some
35 specific criticisms to make of Mr. Morris' purported
36 interpretation of what one finds in the computer printout.
37
38 The reason I am going to do that is that one sees when one
39 looks, in particular, I think it is at the Billings case,
40 it is likely, to say the least, leaving aside all questions
41 of significance and importance for the case, at any rate
42 the majority of these cases upon proper investigation will
43 turn out either to have been simply contested allegations,
44 or to be under appeal by McDonald's or to have been set
45 aside on appeal, or not proceeded with.
46
47 What one sees when one looks at that fistful of
48 semi-reproduced newspaper articles is, largely speaking --
49 not entirely but largely speaking -- allegations by public
50 labour officials to this, that or the other effect, not to
51 the whole of it. Again, I make the comment in this context
52 -- having regard to Mr. Stein's evidence, your Lordship
53 may think it a helpful comment -- in most of these cases we
54 are not told whether the alleged violation was by the
55 Corporation or by a franchisee.
56
57 Your Lordship will remember that, for example -- I think it
58 is the only example so far at least -- the McKale
59 allegations in relation to Pennsylvania, how Mr. Stein
60 dealt with that, because he knew about it. The Company
