Day 148 - 05 Jul 95 - Page 43
1 themselves. So I do not know really, it is in your hands.
2 I mean, we have made our point on it.
3
4 MS. STEEL: Can I just say one further matter and then,
5 perhaps, we will just leave this to draw up a list of
6 things that we have got that may be relevant. This whole
7 thing about us denying our involvement in London Greenpeace
8 is completely false, because we have both said in our
9 statements that we were involved with London Greenpeace.
10
11 I do not know whether it will make things different if we
12 make a formal admission that we have both been involved
13 with London Greenpeace from time to time, but if that is
14 going to save a lot of time, we will do that. To me, it is
15 seems a bit of a waste of time since it is in our witness
16 statements anyway.
17
18 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Is there anything more you want to say
19 because, although I do not want to rush you, as litigants
20 in person, you have to keep moving through the argument as
21 best we can. You have had some time to think about this.
22 I am listening to everything you say. I want you to keep
23 moving through the argument.
24
25 MS. STEEL: Yes. Just in relation to all documentation relating
26 to your response to the letters sent in 1984 and 1990,
27 referred to in the Defence to counterclaim, I think,
28 despite their implying that there were a large number of
29 leaflets they wrote to us, in fact, there was only one to
30 me and then I think they disclosed one to London
31 Greenpeace.
32
33 With concern to the one in 1990, that was the letter where
34 we got the writ, so they know our response. They had the
35 response. They had the letter in reply to that. They had
36 the acknowledgment of service of writ.
37
38 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes, that may be so. All that is being
39 asked is that you list the documentation. Then if you list
40 all the documentation which you have in relation to these
41 issues, which is after all what both parties should do,
42 then McDonald's can decide what of those documents they
43 want to inspect. Then they can decide what of them they
44 want to copy.
45
46 They may well find on your list that you have put a copy of
47 a letter you wrote to them or you listed as a document
48 which you once had but no longer had, a document you have
49 written to them, of course, they do not need to see that.
50 They have got it if they have got it. But by our system
51 they all have to be listed, otherwise we have all sorts of
52 arguments about whether people have missed things off in
53 good faith or bad faith, say: "Well, we did not put that
54 on because we know they have now got a copy of it". That
55 is not an answer to what should be included in the list.
56 You should list everything which is relevant to an issue,
57 leaving the other party to decide what they need to look at
58 if they have not got it and what they want copied and put
59 in court bundles.
60
