Day 083 - 06 Feb 95 - Page 51


     
     1        suppliers in the Plaintiffs in the United States, could
     2        have take that opportunity to make enquiries of those
     3        suppliers for 1989, which is the year in which the pamphlet
     4        was published by these Defendants, if we are right, to ask
     5        them: "Are you quite certain that you have complied with
     6        McDonald's requirement that this beef is not though marked
     7        'domestic' in fact imported beef?"  That they have not
     8        done.
     9
    10   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  The order of events, as you have said, is in
    11        fact disclosure of relevant quality assurance
    12        specifications, certificates of acceptance and certain
    13        letters really to the same effect?
    14
    15   MR. RAMPTON:  Yes.
    16
    17   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Then whatever you say about what might have
    18        happened, the 1979, 1983 and 1984, similar documents are
    19        disclosable, are they not?
    20
    21   MR. RAMPTON:  Yes.  I assume the reason they were not disclosed
    22        is that they do not exist.
    23
    24   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I do not know.
    25
    26   MR. RAMPTON:  My Lord, I do know, with respect.  A number of
    27        them were disclosed in relation to what I call the Duke
    28        Edinburgh's spat relating to 1983.  They are to be found in
    29        yellow volume 14.  The same process.  That discovery came
    30        later because the documents were found by accident in
    31        Barlow's office, as your Lordship knows.  It was thought
    32        that originally none existed, but what is certain is that
    33        there are no documents, because a search has been made,
    34        relevant to this question, "Where does McDonald's US beef
    35        come from", in McDonald's possession, custody or power in
    36        the United States of America, else they would have been
    37        disclosed, as were these 1983 documents when they were
    38        found in the possession of McDonald's UK in their
    39        solicitors' office in this country.
    40
    41        Again, the Defendants could have taken the opportunity when
    42        that discovery was made to get in touch with the suppliers
    43        named, and I do not suppose that is an exhaustive list but
    44        there are some suppliers named in that discovery, to say,
    45        "Well, is this really true?  How can you be sure this is
    46        not imported beef?"  They have not done it and one wonders
    47        why not.
    48
    49   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Have you made any enquiry of any of these,
    50        because you say the purpose in obtaining the list is to 
    51        make enquiries and I have to ask myself whether it is going 
    52        to lead to any useful enquiry?  It might have occurred to 
    53        you, for all I know it did but did you not think it was
    54        worth any further enquiry, that any number of the people on
    55        the list in 1989 would have been on it, for instance, in
    56        1984.  There is no point in having information if the
    57        reality is that it is not going to be chased up.  What, in
    58        effect, Mr. Rampton is saying is you have not chased up the
    59        1989 ones; it is just information for no purpose to give
    60        you 1979, 1983 and 1984.

Prev Next Index