Day 087 - 10 Feb 95 - Page 48


     
     1        the application with these words:
     2
     3        "I am afraid I do not think that the disclosure of would
     4        be a considerable number of documents is essential to the
     5        fair disposal and saving of cost.  I do not think it is
     6        necessary for the fair disposal of this action to
     7        double-check, as it were, every source of information which
     8        every witness has had."
     9
    10        Then Mrs. Steel raised a point about a report which
    11        Mr. Clark had made for McDonald's on a previous occasion,
    12        and rejected that application on the grounds that that
    13        report had been privileged and that the reference to it in
    14        Mr. Clark's statement had not waived the privilege.  That
    15        is through the middle of page 79.  Then finally on page 80
    16        the application was renewed or had been made in relation to
    17        Mr. Jackson as well, and Ms. Steel said: "In relation to
    18        Mr. Jackson I suppose really the comments in relation to
    19        that are the same as what was said in relation to other
    20        suppliers."  Your Lordship said: "I think that follows the
    21        same result."
    22
    23        My Lord, unless circumstances have changed in your
    24        Lordship's opinion, that should, in our submission, remain
    25        the position.  If I had to argue it, quite apart from the
    26        fact whether we have any power over Sun Valley or McKey's
    27        document, which is something we may have to come back to,
    28        I would argue that your Lordship having made that ruling
    29        already (this sounds rude but it is not to be meant) your
    30        Lordship is "functus" on this issue unless circumstances
    31        have changed.
    32
    33        Being that all as it may, I tried to make the helpful
    34        suggestion that for a limited range of documents such as
    35        those seen by Mr. Jackson at Sun Valley and McKey, I would
    36        ask them whether they would be willing to disclose them.
    37        If they say yes, well and good, the documents will be
    38        produced.  If they say no, then, alas, we shall have to
    39        revisit the point and it will have to be argued in full
    40        with evidence, I fear, of what the strict contractual
    41        position is between McDonald's and those two companies.
    42
    43        My Lord, can I pass on to Jarret?  The position in relation
    44        to Jarret is completely different, as it is indeed to
    45        G.D. Bowes & Sons in Norfolk.  Well, it is not completely
    46        different.  In my submission it is the same but it is even
    47        more clear.  They are not in any sense McDonald's
    48        suppliers.
    49
    50   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  What you have just said applies to your 
    51        fourth topic, Mr. Walkers 13,000. 
    52 
    53   MR. RAMPTON:  Indeed it does.  My Lord, I make two observations
    54        about that.  I missed that out, I was coming back to it.
    55        I make two observations about that.  First, that they are
    56        not our documents.  Second, I would not dream (this is a
    57        different from what I said before because I take a
    58        different attitude to it) of asking Mr. Walker to produce
    59        the documentation underlying those 13,000 plus patties
    60        destroyed every day for the purposes of testing.  The

Prev Next Index