Day 083 - 06 Feb 95 - Page 56
1 I do not know what the file was called. There was a file
2 with about 20 documents in it from the Defendants. One of
3 them was page 13 of that file. Maybe it is enough just to
4 ----
5
6 MS. STEEL: It was the list served on 18th January.
7
8 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Which number was it?
9
10 MR. MORRIS: Page 13.
11
12 MS. STEEL: It is page 13 of No. 2.
13
14 MR. MORRIS: Just the documents relevant to that incident and
15 investigation.
16
17 MR. RAMPTON: No, my Lord. Once again this newspaper article,
18 for that it be, the Mail on Sunday of 13th November 1994,
19 is susceptible of (I have just read it for the first time)
20 a number of different allegations, some of which might be
21 thought to defamatory of McDonald's, others of which might
22 not. This is a case, with respect, in which before
23 discovery should be forthcoming we should be told what is
24 the allegation that the Defendants make on the basis of
25 this newspaper article. Thanks, and I say without any
26 sincerity, to the Court of Appeal I cannot stop them
27 raising a pleading on the basis of this newspaper article,
28 but I need to know what the pleading is going to say.
29
30 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Is it any different situation to Preston?
31
32 MR. RAMPTON: I do not know. It is not, on the face of it, a
33 case of food poisoning at all. One does not even know
34 whether if the child had eaten the piece of chicken she
35 might have been poisoned. It might well be that her
36 natural immunity or the quantity was so great or the
37 quantity of salmonella was so small, that there was no
38 risk. One simply does not know. Unless and until the
39 Defendants tell us what part of their justification this
40 constitutes, we ought not to have, with respect, to make
41 any discovery. If it is properly pleaded and it accords
42 with the facts, then we may well admit it of course, but we
43 will have to wait and see. If they stretch the material in
44 the way they sometimes do, then we shall not admit it and
45 then there will be discovery.
46
47 MR. JUSTICE BELL: You may or may not be right about that, but
48 how is it actually any different to the allegations of food
49 poisoning which no challenge has been made to in tab 5?
50 I appreciate it does not say that the three-year old girl
51 in question actually suffered food poisoning, but what the
52 allegation is, is that she started to eat something in
53 which salmonella was found.
54
55 MR. RAMPTON: That is fine. If it is simply an allegation that
56 in its literal meaning this article is true, then I do not
57 have a problem because it leads to no inference. All it
58 says is that there was an uncooked piece of chicken with
59 some salmonella. One cannot speculate whether it was a
60 dangerous amount of salmonella or anything else. One
