Day 083 - 06 Feb 95 - Page 41


     
     1
     2   MR. RAMPTON:  There is not even the basis of a reasonable or
     3        what I might call a sensible speculation that it might be
     4        so.  There is not even that.  What is quite clear on the
     5        authority of the Court of Appeal is that a defendant must
     6        be in a position to plead something -- he cannot make it up
     7         -- and it is not until he is in that position that he is
     8        entitled to any discovery.  Because what the Court of
     9        Appeal did not do was interfere with the long-established
    10        rule (nor could it, in fact) that particulars of
    11        justification must precede discovery.  There is nothing
    12        that the Defendants have on which a new plea of
    13        justification could properly, without being an abuse of the
    14        process, be based in this regard.
    15
    16   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Thank you.  Yes?
    17
    18   MR. MORRIS:  First of all, the document, the Fact Sheet,
    19        specifies Amazonia in the box "50 acres every minute", not
    20        just Central America.  Secondly, the pleadings specify
    21        Central and Latin America which includes Brazil on page 2
    22        and further pages which I cannot find at the moment
    23        but -----
    24
    25   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes, but the point being made against you is
    26        you were asked to particularise that, you see?  You
    27        particularised Costa Rica, dates and sources, you
    28        particularised Guatemala, dates and resources, and if I put
    29        you to it, you would argue:  "Well, we have a basis now to
    30        add Brazil, 80 tonnes in 1983 and 1984".
    31
    32   MR. MORRIS:  Yes.
    33
    34   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I ought to let you amend, if an amendment is
    35        called for -- I am not suggesting it is -- to allege the 80
    36        tonnes in 1983/1984.  But you have no basis upon which to
    37        allege anything more from Brazil; that is what is put
    38        against you.  If you have no basis for alleging it, there
    39        is no basis for seeking discovery in relation to it.
    40
    41   MS. STEEL:   We have got a basis for alleging more beef than
    42        that from Brazil because there were the other transport
    43        documents that related to 30 tonnes of Brazilian beef and
    44        things like that.
    45
    46   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  That is at the very best a loose end at the
    47        moment, is it not?
    48
    49   MR. MORRIS:  We know that McDonald's in Brazil purchased a large
    50        amount of beef within Brazil which is similar ----- 
    51 
    52   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Where do you know that from? 
    53
    54   MR. MORRIS:  Evidence has been given in court and in documents
    55        disclosed by McDonald's that they have or they had about
    56        five years ago 50 restaurants in Brazil which used
    57        Brazilian beef.  You may recall the letter from 1982.  At
    58        that time they had six stores.  It said:  "In Brazil we
    59        only use Brazilian beef" which, of course, it turned out
    60        was -- sorry, it said:  "The only Brazilian beef we use is

Prev Next Index