Day 012 - 18 Jul 94 - Page 80


     
     1
         Q.   I am conscious of the time so I want to move on.  If we
     2        can consider that formal request for any documentary
              details of when the decision was made.
     3
         MR. JUSTICE BELL:  If there is; I have to say "readily
     4        available" because I do not see why going back at the
              moment seven years every filing cabinet or microfiche has
     5        to be got over to see if there was a document.  But if
              there is documentation readily available which shows when
     6        a decision was made with regard to this, it would
              obviously help or it might help.
     7
         MR. RAMPTON:  My Lord, I really cannot see it can matter very
     8        much because, plainly, it must have been taken by or
              before the brochure appeared in April 1986.
     9
         MR. JUSTICE BELL:  At the moment the picture is there is some
    10        kind of discussion between McDonald's and the office of
              the Attorney General in New York.
    11
         MR. MORRIS:  Yes.
    12
         MR. JUSTICE BELL:  The evidence I have heard so far is that by
    13        that time and for some indefinite period of time before
              then, McDonald's had been thinking of giving more details
    14        as to the ingredients of their foods.  It appears there
              was some customer interest in that.  It suited the
    15        interests of the Attorney General of New York that more
              information was given.
    16
              I think in some letter it is clear that he shrank from
    17        saying that everything sold should be labelled because,
              although it was arguable that items sold in fastfood
    18        stores were packaged food in relation to which there was
              legislation enforced, there was an argument about that and
    19        he could see difficulties over it.
 
    20        The evidence of this witness is that McDonald's had their
              motives, the Attorney General in New York had his motives
    21        for agreeing that booklet or booklets should be
              published.  Then McDonald's case is that California and
    22        Texas tried to jump on the bandwagon.  Mr. Gardner's
              statement is to the contrary; that they were forcing
    23        McDonald's to do it.  That is the issue from then on.
 
    24   MR. MORRIS:  If I may make some final points?
 
    25   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  That is a summary of where the different
              ground lies, is it not? 
    26 
         MS. STEEL:  I think the more documents that show the actual 
    27        situation and when everything took place, the easier it is
              going to be for, you know, the truth to be seen.
    28
         MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Maybe, but all I can say is that it seems to
    29        me there is a relevance in that documentation.  That makes
              it discoverable.  At the moment McDonald's have not
    30        discovered it or have not discovered more than they have
              given already, which is a way of saying they do not have

Prev Next Index