Day 148 - 05 Jul 95 - Page 43


     
     1        themselves.  So I do not know really, it is in your hands.
     2        I mean, we have made our point on it.
     3
     4   MS. STEEL:   Can I just say one further matter and then,
     5        perhaps, we will just leave this to draw up a list of
     6        things that we have got that may be relevant.  This whole
     7        thing about us denying our involvement in London Greenpeace
     8        is completely false, because we have both said in our
     9        statements that we were involved with London Greenpeace.
    10
    11        I do not know whether it will make things different if we
    12        make a formal admission that we have both been involved
    13        with London Greenpeace from time to time, but if that is
    14        going to save a lot of time, we will do that.  To me, it is
    15        seems a bit of a waste of time since it is in our witness
    16        statements anyway.
    17
    18   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Is there anything more you want to say
    19        because, although I do not want to rush you, as litigants
    20        in person, you have to keep moving through the argument as
    21        best we can.  You have had some time to think about this.
    22        I am listening to everything you say.  I want you to keep
    23        moving through the argument.
    24
    25   MS. STEEL:  Yes.  Just in relation to all documentation relating
    26        to your response to the letters sent in 1984 and 1990,
    27        referred to in the Defence to counterclaim, I think,
    28        despite their implying that there were a large number of
    29        leaflets they wrote to us, in fact, there was only one to
    30        me and then I think they disclosed one to London
    31        Greenpeace.
    32
    33        With concern to the one in 1990, that was the letter where
    34        we got the writ, so they know our response.  They had the
    35        response.  They had the letter in reply to that.  They had
    36        the acknowledgment of service of writ.
    37
    38   MR. JUSTICE BELL:   Yes, that may be so.  All that is being
    39        asked is that you list the documentation.  Then if you list
    40        all the documentation which you have in relation to these
    41        issues, which is after all what both parties should do,
    42        then McDonald's can decide what of those documents they
    43        want to inspect.  Then they can decide what of them they
    44        want to copy.
    45
    46        They may well find on your list that you have put a copy of
    47        a letter you wrote to them or you listed as a document
    48        which you once had but no longer had, a document you have
    49        written to them, of course, they do not need to see that.
    50        They have got it if they have got it.  But by our system 
    51        they all have to be listed, otherwise we have all sorts of 
    52        arguments about whether people have missed things off in 
    53        good faith or bad faith, say:  "Well, we did not put that
    54        on because we know they have now got a copy of it".  That
    55        is not an answer to what should be included in the list.
    56        You should list everything which is relevant to an issue,
    57        leaving the other party to decide what they need to look at
    58        if they have not got it and what they want copied and put
    59        in court bundles.
    60

Prev Next Index