Day 163 - 25 Sep 95 - Page 42


     
     1   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Thank you for that, but it was not put by the
     2        Defendants to any witness.
     3
     4   MR. RAMPTON:  No.
     5
     6   MR. MORRIS:  It might have been put to Dr. Clark but, of course,
     7        the Plaintiffs did not call him.
     8
     9   MR. RAMPTON:  Mr. Morris knows the answer to that.  He still has
    10        the option to call Mr. Clark himself.  He knows that.
    11
    12   MR. MORRIS:  Mr. North is still to give further evidence.
    13
    14   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  We must take the arguments in their proper
    15        order.  Yes?
    16
    17   MR. RAMPTON:  Flies and mouse droppings, my Lord, I find
    18        repeatedly in these pleadings.  I would say that, as a
    19        generality, they are new.  I also say, as I said a moment
    20        ago -- I know I am repeating myself -- they really do not
    21        have any bearing on the issues raised by the leaflet which
    22        is the subject of this action.  It simply is not right at
    23        this stage in the case anyway to make us litigate these
    24        questions.  Even supposing we did and it turned out that
    25        the Defendants are right about half of them, I ask the
    26        rhetorical question:  Really, in the end what, even if half
    27        or three-quarters of these allegations were proved after
    28        another two or three weeks of additional litigation,
    29        significance would that have for your Lordship's ultimate
    30        decision in the case on the issue of food poisoning?
    31
    32        My Lord, I turn to Employment Conditions.  Most of what
    33        I said about Store Hygiene I repeat in relation to these
    34        alleged violations of child labour law.  I will have some
    35        specific criticisms to make of Mr. Morris' purported
    36        interpretation of what one finds in the computer printout.
    37
    38        The reason I am going to do that is that one sees when one
    39        looks, in particular, I think it is at the Billings case,
    40        it is likely, to say the least, leaving aside all questions
    41        of significance and importance for the case, at any rate
    42        the majority of these cases upon proper investigation will
    43        turn out either to have been simply contested allegations,
    44        or to be under appeal by McDonald's or to have been set
    45        aside on appeal, or not proceeded with.
    46
    47        What one sees when one looks at that fistful of
    48        semi-reproduced newspaper articles is, largely speaking --
    49        not entirely but largely speaking -- allegations by public
    50        labour officials to this, that or the other effect, not to 
    51        the whole of it.  Again, I make the comment in this context 
    52         -- having regard to Mr. Stein's evidence, your Lordship 
    53        may think it a helpful comment -- in most of these cases we
    54        are not told whether the alleged violation was by the
    55        Corporation or by a franchisee.
    56
    57        Your Lordship will remember that, for example -- I think it
    58        is the only example so far at least -- the McKale
    59        allegations in relation to Pennsylvania, how Mr. Stein
    60        dealt with that, because he knew about it.  The Company

Prev Next Index