Day 057 - 29 Nov 94 - Page 27


     
     1        means.  That had been cut off in the copy which we
     2        originally received from McDonald's legal department, not
     3        quite evidently from any sinister design since, plainly,
     4        the piece of information which we now have favours the
     5        Plaintiffs' case and not the Defendants'.
     6
     7   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Have the Defendants had a copy of that
     8        document?
     9
    10   MR. RAMPTON:  No, I do not think they have, but I think
    11        Mrs. Brinley-Codd has them here.  I hasten to say I have
    12        not actually seen it yet.
    13
    14   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Perhaps that could be handed over as soon
    15        possible.  We will come back to it, if we need to, at
    16        2 o'clock when you have had an opportunity to see the
    17        document.
    18
    19   MR. MORRIS:  We would certainly like to, yes.  Maybe it would be
    20        helpful before lunch if Mr. Rampton read the Court of
    21        Appeal judgment that was reported in The Times.  The next
    22        one is the Gunther Walraff employees' testimony.  This was
    23        brought up, I believe, before trial, was it, not about the
    24        employees who had, I think it was 60 employees, made
    25        testimony for the Munich case on Mr. Walraff's book
    26        indicating that they ate McDonald's food every day and they
    27        had not had food poisoning, I think, was the issue which
    28        swayed the judge in, I think, criticising -- I cannot
    29        remember now exactly -- the book for implying that
    30        McDonald's food could cause food poisoning.
    31
    32        In any event you may remember that it was discussed.
    33        I think the Plaintiffs indicated they were going to provide
    34        those documents but, in any event, they certainly should do
    35        because it is relevant to the matter.
    36
    37   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Produce what documents?
    38
    39   MR. MORRIS:  The documents where the witnesses testified -- for
    40        a start, all the documents relevant to that case which has
    41        been pleaded in any event should be disclosed.  We did say
    42        that, but I particularly mentioned those documents because
    43        it came up under the amount of times that the employees
    44        actually did eat the food.
    45
    46   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  How are they going to advance the case, that
    47        60 employees have said they have eaten lots of McDonald's
    48        meals and not got food poisoning?
    49
    50   MR. MORRIS:  The court may want to draw, considering the 
    51        possible extension of the Plaintiffs' case to include 
    52        whether some people have eaten McDonald's foods to a 
    53        significant amount, then that would be relevant and,
    54        obviously, it would be indicative of something that may be
    55        occurring on a large scale.  All the documents relevant to
    56        that case, we believe, should be disclosed anyway.
    57
    58   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  But what is the point that they are relevant
    59        to?
    60

Prev Next Index