Day 087 - 10 Feb 95 - Page 38
1 used from a rainforest country, put very generally, it puts
2 pressure on rainforest land. Whatever might be said about
3 that, it is not at the moment related to Brazil. The first
4 step is for the Defendants to think of an amendment and
5 then we can have an argument, if there must be an argument,
6 as to whether they should have leave to include it.
7
8 MR. RAMPTON: My Lord, yes. I think I said this last week or
9 may be it was earlier this week -- my recent chronology is
10 rather confused -- before ever that happened, it is very
11 likely that there would be, as I think I said, a request
12 for further and better particulars. What happened, as your
13 Lordship remembers, on the previous occasion was that by
14 constant pressure for particulars, the Defendants were
15 constrained to accept and state expressly that their
16 rainforest case was confined to Costa Rica and Guatemala in
17 certain years.
18
19 I myself will not accept -- I cannot govern what your
20 Lordship will accept, of course -- some woolly plea about
21 the use of beef by McDonald's Brazilian restaurants over a
22 period of time exerting pressure in some indirect way and
23 speculative way upon some people in some areas of Brazil to
24 chop down rainforest trees.
25
26 I shall require, by giving the Defendants notice, so far as
27 this case is concerned, precise details of how it is that
28 the beef taken by McDonald's restaurants in Brazil has had
29 that effect and where precisely in Brazil it is alleged to
30 have happened: Quantities, numbers, years, geographical
31 areas.
32
33 MR. JUSTICE BELL: If we look at the pleading in tab 1, at the
34 bottom of page 2 there is an allegation that "meat from
35 cattle ranches in Central and Latin America, including some
36 using ex-rainforest land"; so it is not just from cattle
37 ranches including ex-rainforest land; "... has been
38 supplied to restaurants operated or franchised by the First
39 Plaintiff and/or its subsidiaries. In this way McDonald's
40 bear some", that is my emphasis, "responsibility for and/or
41 have contributed to the destruction of rainforest in
42 Central and Latin America. By whatever means, that
43 destruction has been carried out".
44
45 That has not been struck out. Just to take an example of a
46 particular, which again is here: "In 1975 Industria de
47 Ganaderos Gualtemaltecos began supplying McDonald's
48 Guatemala". So we have a case pleaded at the moment which
49 includes the allegation that McDonald's bear some
50 responsibility for and/or have contributed to the
51 destruction of rainforest by taking meat from cattle
52 ranches in Guatemala; some, but not all, of which are on
53 ex-rainforest land for supplying McDonald's Guatemala. No
54 application has been made to strike that out. So I am
55 assuming that that is a valid allegation at the moment.
56
57 What I understand the Defendants wish to do is in respect
58 of beef supplied to McDonald's in Brazil plead a similar
59 allegation.
60
