Day 053 - 22 Nov 94 - Page 24


     
     1        degenerative disease in some people, whether by
     2        contribution to an unhealthy diet or otherwise, you would
     3        have a lot of supporters around the country who would be
     4        very taken aback, would you not?
     5
     6   MS. STEEL:   I am not arguing against that.  I am just saying
     7        that we do not have to prove that, and that is not the
     8        whole of our case.
     9
    10   MR. MORRIS:  There are many things that have cropped up in our
    11        evidence that are relevant to the case, but not
    12        specifically things that we have to prove to win our 16
    13        points -- their 16 points, as it happens.
    14
    15        We are a bit uncomfortable that what is happening at the
    16        moment is that we are under pressure to justify, not
    17        justify but to explain, our state of mind in the history of
    18        this case, but it is the Plaintiffs that are seeking to
    19        amend.  They have to justify and explain and satisfy the
    20        court what their state of mind has been with their
    21        pleadings:  why they are changing it; why they have made
    22        admissions; why they have made admissions late; why have
    23        they only made part admissions; why do they make only an
    24        admission on cancer yesterday, in controversial terms, that
    25        they are accepting a link between diet and cancer; why did
    26        they only make an admission yesterday for the first time,
    27        when they made an admission on heart disease, it was, in
    28        fact, a causal link?
    29
    30   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  You are not under pressure.  You are being
    31        given the opportunity, having heard what the test was
    32        yesterday in the authorities, to say why it would be unfair
    33        to you or you would be prejudiced if there was the
    34        amendment; and in order to get my mind around that problem,
    35        I am looking back at what your frame of mind might or might
    36        not be.  That is the relevance of it.
    37
    38        You carry on with your submissions.  I only interrupted to
    39        try and get my mind round it and to see just what your
    40        position was.
    41
    42   MS. STEEL:  I can honestly say that we never realised that we
    43        would have to prove causally, or McDonald's meals rather
    44        than diet, as they are trying to amend here.  Perhaps that
    45        may seem daft, or something like that, but that is the fact
    46        of the matter.
    47
    48        We were working on what their pleadings were, and what we
    49        pleaded as a result of what they said in their Statement of
    50        Claim.  That was the basis of our whole preparation and 
    51        cross-examination.  Where "cause" was asked about, it was 
    52        because that was one type of link, not because we thought 
    53        that that was the link that we had to prove.
    54
    55        Yesterday, Mr. Rampton said that it was clear that the
    56        Statement of Claim was badly pleaded -- I think he did say
    57        something to that effect -- and that it was only when
    58        Mr. Atkinson was looking through the pleadings in the break
    59        in September that they realised this.
    60

Prev Next Index