Day 163 - 25 Sep 95 - Page 45


     
     1        be true or all admitted, to your Lordship's ability to make
     2        a fair and just decision on the issue of employment which
     3        is, after all, do McDonald's treat their employees properly
     4        or not, broadly speaking.  Then we would submit that the
     5        burden which allowing these amendments would place on us is
     6        disproportionately large compared with the benefit which
     7        the litigation of these 12 allegations would confer on the
     8        case as a whole.
     9
    10        It would be different, and a responsible litigant who was
    11        having to pay his and the other side's legal bills at the
    12        end of it might take this into account, if we had any
    13        remedy in costs.  Your Lordship may well say, oh well, but
    14        you knew when you brought this case that the Defendants
    15        were impecunious and would never be able to pay anything.
    16        True, my Lord, but that is not, with respect, the answer to
    17        the point I am making.  The point I am making is that we
    18        shall suffer a real injustice in terms of time and money if
    19        these amendments are allowed without any corresponding
    20        benefit or justice being conferred on the case as a whole
    21        or on the Defendants' case.  Even supposing that these
    22        allegations are all true, how in the end would that (this
    23        is the question I invite your Lordship to answer) help your
    24        Lordship to decide that the what the leaflet says about
    25        McDonald's and employment is true?  That ultimately is the
    26        question which matters.
    27
    28        Mr. Morris even at this late stage in the case may be
    29        forgiven for thinking that he is entitled to lead evidence
    30        which may simply, as it were, damage McDonald's
    31        credibility, whether on what they said in court or what
    32        they said outside court.  That is not so.  He is only
    33        entitled to lead evidence which does truly speaking go to
    34        the issue of justification.  I am bound to say that I have
    35        the gravest doubt whether, even if all these things were
    36        proved, they would have that effect.
    37
    38        My Lord, I will if I may, and I think it is necessarily
    39        really because your Lordship despite what I said may be
    40        inclined to give leave, draw your Lordship's attention to
    41        one or two howlers in the pleading.  The first one is
    42        paragraph 2, maybe your Lordship has already spotted this
    43        which comes I think from page 45.
    44
    45   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I do not want to take you out of order, so
    46        you follow your own order.
    47
    48   MR. RAMPTON:  If your Lordship wants to, I do not mind.  I just
    49        took them in the order in which they were pleaded.
    50 
    51   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  It was merely because 1 ---- 
    52 
    53   MR. RAMPTON:  I take 1 to be totally meaningless as a plea of
    54        justification, two people are having an argument.  It leads
    55        absolutely nowhere.  The other thing I do believe that is
    56        important in cases of this kind is that it is not
    57        sufficient for a defendant to plead, "Ooh, you have been
    58        criticised" or "Ooh, somebody has alleged something against
    59        you."  Even if it is the King of Siam that has made the
    60        allegation still less does it go for a minor official of

Prev Next Index