Day 124 - 10 May 95 - Page 41
1 this should have been disclosed as soon you had had time to
2 read it.
3
4 MR. MORRIS: We had to consider whether we wanted to raise it,
5 whether it was relevant.
6
7 MR. JUSTICE BELL: No, it does not matter whether you want to
8 raise it. Surely by now you realise the whole point of
9 discovery in this country is that if a document is
10 relevant, subject to certain other exceptions none of which
11 applies to this document, if it is relevant as soon as you
12 appreciate that, you have to disclose it. I am not
13 concerned myself about this coming in now. It is one short
14 paragraph you have put. It may be a basis for adding Hong
15 Kong to the Philippines and Turkey. It may not. I do not
16 suppose that is going to break the back of this case one
17 way or the other. What alarms me slightly is that there
18 can be an argument that when Mr. Beavers started giving
19 evidence again on Tuesday, and assuming that a few days ago
20 was before Tuesday, and assuming that you read it before
21 Tuesday, and assuming that you thought you might want to
22 ask him about it, you did not just hand a copy to
23 Mrs. Brinley-Codd on Tuesday morning. I am not worried
24 about this document. I do want you to take on board that
25 whatever criticism you may make of McDonald's, justified or
26 otherwise, you have to accept that you must disclose these
27 documents when you get them.
28
29 MS. STEEL: We do our best to disclose things as soon as
30 possible. If this document was relevant, the Plaintiffs
31 should have disclosed it themselves.
32
33 MR. MORRIS: It is clearly relevant because it contradicts the
34 evidence they have given about Turkey and the Philippines,
35 for a start.
36
37 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Do bear in mind what I have just said.
38
39 MR. MORRIS: I think we should bear in mind that Helen had not
40 actually read it, so in fact it should not even have been
41 disclosed today.
42
43 MR. JUSTICE BELL: It should because you are party to this
44 action, and you are a separate party, much in harness
45 though you may conduct the case, and the moment you
46 realised it was relevant and you might want to use it -- by
47 all means give her a copy straightaway, so Ms. Steel can
48 read it as well, but it has to be disclosed to the other
49 side. There is no rule by which separate parties, whose
50 interest is the same, have to consult each other, or,
51 indeed, are entitled to take the time to do so, before they
52 decide whether to disclose a document, discoverable or not.
53
54 MS. STEEL: I am quite sure the Plaintiffs discuss things with
55 their legal advisors and with each other's executives
56 before they decide which documents to disclose.
57
58 MR. JUSTICE BELL: It is not just a question of comparisons, it
59 is question whether a document is discoverable and
60 discoverable promptly or not. Carry on now. Leave this
