Day 242 - 29 Apr 96 - Page 43
1 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes?
2
3 MR. MORRIS: I will say what I have to say and then Ms. Steel
4 will say what she has to say.
5
6 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes.
7
8 MR. MORRIS: My position is that the Plaintiffs made an
9 admission in order to remove an issue in the case. That
10 was their choice. The fact that the very real risk is now
11 part of the meaning should not change the fact that they
12 did not plead originally any extent of risk and it was not
13 an issue in the case at all.
14
15 If the Plaintiffs are saying that their admission did not
16 include the matter of the extent of risk, it is because
17 their pleading did not include the extent of risk, and
18 whatever the meaning of any section of the leaflet that is
19 decided, it does not bring an issue into the case that is
20 not an issue which is originally pleaded by the Plaintiffs
21 because it is up to them to decide which part of the
22 leaflet and what it means and what the issues are. This
23 obviously could come up in other parts of the leaflet, that
24 a meaning may be found which includes something which the
25 Plaintiffs have not actually pleaded.
26
27 This may be where, I suppose, the conundrum, or whatever it
28 really is, is that it seems to be a new issue in which case
29 it should be dealt with, but in fact it is only a new issue
30 because the Plaintiffs have not pleaded it at all if that
31 is accepted by the court. So, that is the first thing.
32
33 Secondly, the Court of Appeal, we were awaiting for a copy
34 of the judgment but, effectively, we concentrated on our
35 appeal on the non-discretionary part of the application,
36 which was the point about the admissions, removing an issue
37 in the case, and the fact that a new issue had now
38 seemingly come in, which is the very real risk issue, and
39 the Court of Appeal did not make any ruling on the extent
40 of the admissions and how it relates to the case and said
41 it was a matter for this court to deal with.
42
43 So far as we were concerned, the Court of Appeal hearing
44 was not against us or for us. It was really left to this
45 court to decide and we are asking the court to decide on
46 that matter.
47
48 Mr. Rampton said that there are three issues now, as far as
49 I can see: Is McDonald's food unhealthy because of its
50 nutritional contents or lack of them? Will a consumption
51 of such food lead to a high fat diet? Is a high fat diet
52 leading to a very real risk of getting the degenerative
53 diseases?
54
55 As far as the first one is concerned, is McDonald's food
56 unhealthy, that has already been canvassed a thousand times
57 over previously in the case. Mr. Wheelock certainly went
58 into great detail about that both in examination and
59 cross-examination. Although it is very interesting
60 what Dr. Naismith says, a lot of it is going over old
