Day 057 - 29 Nov 94 - Page 27
1 means. That had been cut off in the copy which we
2 originally received from McDonald's legal department, not
3 quite evidently from any sinister design since, plainly,
4 the piece of information which we now have favours the
5 Plaintiffs' case and not the Defendants'.
6
7 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Have the Defendants had a copy of that
8 document?
9
10 MR. RAMPTON: No, I do not think they have, but I think
11 Mrs. Brinley-Codd has them here. I hasten to say I have
12 not actually seen it yet.
13
14 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Perhaps that could be handed over as soon
15 possible. We will come back to it, if we need to, at
16 2 o'clock when you have had an opportunity to see the
17 document.
18
19 MR. MORRIS: We would certainly like to, yes. Maybe it would be
20 helpful before lunch if Mr. Rampton read the Court of
21 Appeal judgment that was reported in The Times. The next
22 one is the Gunther Walraff employees' testimony. This was
23 brought up, I believe, before trial, was it, not about the
24 employees who had, I think it was 60 employees, made
25 testimony for the Munich case on Mr. Walraff's book
26 indicating that they ate McDonald's food every day and they
27 had not had food poisoning, I think, was the issue which
28 swayed the judge in, I think, criticising -- I cannot
29 remember now exactly -- the book for implying that
30 McDonald's food could cause food poisoning.
31
32 In any event you may remember that it was discussed.
33 I think the Plaintiffs indicated they were going to provide
34 those documents but, in any event, they certainly should do
35 because it is relevant to the matter.
36
37 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Produce what documents?
38
39 MR. MORRIS: The documents where the witnesses testified -- for
40 a start, all the documents relevant to that case which has
41 been pleaded in any event should be disclosed. We did say
42 that, but I particularly mentioned those documents because
43 it came up under the amount of times that the employees
44 actually did eat the food.
45
46 MR. JUSTICE BELL: How are they going to advance the case, that
47 60 employees have said they have eaten lots of McDonald's
48 meals and not got food poisoning?
49
50 MR. MORRIS: The court may want to draw, considering the
51 possible extension of the Plaintiffs' case to include
52 whether some people have eaten McDonald's foods to a
53 significant amount, then that would be relevant and,
54 obviously, it would be indicative of something that may be
55 occurring on a large scale. All the documents relevant to
56 that case, we believe, should be disclosed anyway.
57
58 MR. JUSTICE BELL: But what is the point that they are relevant
59 to?
60
