Day 158 - 19 Jul 95 - Page 37


     
     1        belief that because of the nature of the edict, and that it
     2        came from the highest possible level in the Corporation,
     3        i.e. the Chair, and because of the enormous political
     4        sensitivity of it, as admitted, and the fact they were able
     5        to contravene such, what could only be the highest possible
     6        level of policy, that if that can be breached, then it is
     7        reasonable to believe that other sections of the Company
     8        have done the same on their -----
     9
    10   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  This is where Mr. Rampton objects.  What
    11        I want you to do, and you can do it now, if you like, as it
    12        has cropped up here, what Mr. Rampton says is you have no
    13        evidence in relation to other subsidiaries around the
    14        world.  What he is concerned about (and I have to say it
    15        concerns me), you get leave to amend in this form, and you
    16        say:  "Now we are entitled to this, that and the other
    17        discovery to see if other companies have done it" when you
    18        have no evidence in the first place.
    19
    20   MR. MORRIS:  First of all, we would say that the discovery is --
    21        I know that you have said we ought to deal with the
    22        discovery after the amendment.
    23
    24   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I think you should.  I think you should tell
    25        me in relation -- suppose you have got leave to amend in
    26        your revised form of paragraph 1, and suppose you have got
    27        leave to amend in the form of paragraph 2, as you have
    28        drafted it, not with my suggested change ---
    29
    30   MR. MORRIS:  Yes.
    31
    32   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  -- then, using Lord Justice Neill's words,
    33        what ground do you have for supposing that sufficient
    34        evidence to prove the allegations will be available in due
    35        course from now?  I know he was talking about a stage
    36        before trial and looking ahead to what might turn up at
    37        trial, but you have referred to the evidence which you say
    38        you have got already, be it from Dr. Gomez Gonzales ---
    39
    40   MR. MORRIS:  Mr. Monbiot.
    41
    42   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  -- McDonald's map of Brazil, a Vesty letter
    43        or Mr. Shane and his report and Mr. Monbiot, but in case
    44        I were to think that that was not enough, what do you
    45        suppose will turn up in the future by way of discovery or
    46        by cross-examination of any future McDonald's witness?  I
    47        mean, maybe you will say:  "Nothing at all;  I am not
    48        expecting anything else to turn up.  I am just going to be
    49        relying on Mr. Shane, Mr. Monbiot and what
    50        Dr. Gomez Gonzales has said, the map and the Vesty letter". 
    51 
    52   MS. STEEL:   I was just going to say, there very well may be 
    53        other incidents of direct contravention of Company edicts
    54        which turn up.  Given that this -----
    55
    56   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  What ground have you got to suppose that
    57        there is?
    58
    59   MS. STEEL:   Given that this was sanctioned by the President of
    60        the UK McDonald's, so it could not really have gone any

Prev Next Index