Day 083 - 06 Feb 95 - Page 36


     
     1        last week.  The first question is whether you should list
     2        any documents and if they are relevant or arguably relevant
     3        to an issue, you should do that.  You can then say:  "But,
     4        look, now you know what the documents are, really don't ask
     5        us to go chasing all around the Pacific rim because it is
     6        not necessary to do that for the fair disposal of the case
     7        or saving cost".  That is stage two, is it not?
     8
     9   MR. RAMPTON:  I am just wondering whether your Lordship is right
    10        about that and I should be able to give the answer off the
    11        top of my head.  But my recollection is -----
    12
    13   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  The burden is -- my summary may not be
    14        entirely right because what you can say is:  "Even if they
    15        are relevant, if we can demonstrate to you that their
    16        disclosure is not necessary for the fair disposal", the
    17        burden is on you at that stage.
    18
    19   MR. RAMPTON:  Your Lordship jumped two fences at once because
    20        there are two stages.  There is the discovery stage where
    21        the burden is on me and there is the inspection stage where
    22        the burden is on the Defendants.  That, I think, does
    23        emerge not from the Dolling-Baker case but from a recent
    24        decision at first instance.  I forget which case it is.  It
    25        is either the decision of Mr. Justice Lightman or someone
    26        else; I cannot remember who.  The first stage is Order 24,
    27        Rule 8, where burden is on me where it says:  "Discovery",
    28        not inspection, "to be ordered only if necessary for the
    29        fair disposal of the case or the saving of costs".
    30
    31        What I have in mind, my Lord, is this:  It may be a
    32        marginal issue in the case whether the Plaintiffs' use of
    33        meat in countries which have rainforests has some kind of
    34        indirect impact on the ecologies of the rainforests areas
    35        of those countries.  One would have to look at the amount
    36        of usage in each of those countries, if this were the
    37        issue, and determine what percentage of the country's total
    38        beef usage the Plaintiffs' usage constituted.  Your
    39        Lordship has the figures for Costa Rica and it is something
    40        under one per cent.
    41
    42        When one casts one's mind back to the pamphlet and what is
    43        there said about McDonald's treatment of the rainforests,
    44        then, my Lord, one is, I would respectfully submit, driven
    45        to say that the case which the Defendants have raised by
    46        way of defence on the rainforest issue is of the most
    47        marginal significance.
    48
    49        I do not want to have to make this submission at this
    50        stage, but if driven to it I will, because I am determined 
    51        that the Defendants should not use this case as a means of 
    52        causing aggravation and expense to McDonald's 
    53        unnecessarily.  But if I do have to, I will make the
    54        submission that really the Defence in this area of the case
    55        is doomed to failure.  If necessary, I will have to ask
    56        your Lordship to strike it out because one looks back at
    57        the leaflet and one finds on the second page this:  "Why is
    58        it wrong for McDonald's to destroy rainforests?"  Under
    59        "pet food and environment/index.html">litter":  "McDonald's and Burger King are
    60        two of the many US corporations using", not indirectly

Prev Next Index