Day 164 - 26 Sep 95 - Page 07


     
     1
     2   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  It seems to me I cannot put the possibility
     3        of discovery completely on one side at the moment, because
     4        in the exercise of my discretion I have to contemplate how
     5        much work might be involved for what result, but you carry
     6        on anyway.
     7
     8   MR. MORRIS:  Yes.  I do not think the discovery issue should be
     9        used as a means of refusing any valid relevant amendment.
    10        The nature of the discovery is the next issue to be dealt
    11        with after an amendment properly served has been allowed,
    12        and the extent of that discovery or, of course, it could be
    13        dealt with by admission -----
    14
    15   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  One of the factors I would have to consider,
    16        putting it in ordinary lay terms, is whether and if so what
    17        discovery was reasonable in all the circumstances.
    18
    19   MR. MORRIS:  Yes.  The point about the Store Hygiene matters is
    20        that they are all within a limited period of time in one
    21        particular town.  McDonald's has said repeatedly and given
    22        evidence to the fact that they have a pretty uniform
    23        system, kitchen system, and attitude in their stores.  A
    24        snap shot of one particular area at a particular time can
    25        be an indication that the amount of evidence which they
    26        have presented to the court about their, what I would say,
    27        near perfection and claims of dedication to hygiene matters
    28        may not actually be the reality on the ground.
    29
    30        So, if any matters relevant to hygiene and certainly
    31        citations from the authorities must be relevant -- I have
    32        lost my train of thought -- if hygiene matters, apart from
    33        a very strictly limited question of -- no, I will move on
    34        from that.
    35
    36        Just one point which applies to all the documents:
    37        I believe we served the documents in March 1995 -- that is
    38        my recollection -- but I was expected to plead them before
    39        we could deal with them, the hygiene ones that was.
    40        I think the ones on employment we did not serve because we
    41        were -- I do not know if we served them or not -- we
    42        brought them to court and I think the situation is that the
    43        Plaintiffs did not want to see them because there was some
    44        debate with a legal argument about whether we should put
    45        them or not put them.
    46
    47        In the end it was decided we should put them to Mr. Stein.
    48        So the Plaintiffs did have plenty of notice of what our
    49        allegations were because we put them to Mr. Stein.  I think
    50        that is a small point because what ever happened in March 
    51        they are now on the table for consideration. 
    52 
    53        If I can move on to the employment conditions section?
    54
    55   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  It is a very small point, but looking at the
    56        Washington Post, it is 11th June 1995, and the dates are
    57        31st May to 1st June.  So, presumably, it should be 1995,
    58        not 1994?
    59
    60   MR. MORRIS:  That is absolutely correct.

Prev Next Index