Day 242 - 29 Apr 96 - Page 44


     
     1        ground, maybe with a new slant or maybe not, but the
     2        Plaintiffs should not be allowed to reopen a part of the
     3        case that has been canvassed before, and especially not at
     4        this stage in the case.
     5
     6        The second point of his three issues was about McDonald's
     7        food and whether some people eat a significant amount of it
     8        to affect their diet or whatever.  That has largely been
     9        canvassed before.  We have Mr. Fairgrieve who is related to
    10        that and coming back.  There is no need to call new
    11        witnesses on that subject who have not previously had
    12        statements put in.
    13
    14        We then get to the very real risk matter, which I have
    15        already touched upon, and I suppose I have already put our
    16        point on that.  Either their admission removed an issue in
    17        the case, which would be anything that would come under the
    18        umbrella of the original issue in dispute between their
    19        pleading and ours, or it did not because the issue of very
    20        real risk was not in fact pleaded at all in which case it
    21        should not be allowed to become an issue, even though it is
    22        quite valid to have included it in the meaning of any
    23        section of the leaflet.  Obviously it is for you to decide
    24        what the meaning is, but that does not mean to say that it
    25        necessarily becomes an issue if it was not an issue
    26        beforehand because, obviously, in fact your ruling on
    27        meanings are largely going to come at the end and it will
    28        not mean that a new issue has come into the case that was
    29        not dealt with before because all the evidence will have
    30        closed.  So this unusual circumstance of having a meaning
    31        identified before the end of the evidence should not allow
    32        a new issue to come into the case that was not specifically
    33        pleaded by the Plaintiffs.
    34
    35        Of course, if it had been specifically pleaded by the
    36        Plaintiffs, it would have been specifically pleaded by the
    37        Defendants and I have every confidence in our case on this
    38        issue that heart disease, high blood pressure and obesity
    39        are probably the most substantial causes of disease and
    40        death in this country and, therefore, affecting millions of
    41        people and it is certainly not something like the risk of
    42        being struck by lighting when you walk across the field.
    43
    44        But having said that I feel that our case is absolutely
    45        solid on it, it does not mean to say that there should be a
    46        need to call further evidence on an issue that in fact is
    47        not merely an issue, was not an issue as defined by the
    48        Plaintiffs' pleadings.
    49
    50        My position is that although Dr. Naismith's statement is 
    51        interesting, I personally, and we in general, are pretty 
    52        exhausted at this stage in the case, and the need to deal 
    53        with a whole range of matters that have already been
    54        canvassed before, and cross-examine a new witness, and
    55        possibly go back to our witnesses to get instructions about
    56        cross-examination of this, and that kind of stuff, I think
    57        would be an unnecessary burden which should not be allowed
    58        and, as I have said, most of the stuff has already been
    59        canvassed before in any event.
    60

Prev Next Index