Day 087 - 10 Feb 95 - Page 39


     
     1   MR. RAMPTON:  I agree, but it would have to be -- this is a
     2        matter for the future, of course -- the amount of detail
     3        with which your Lordship might be satisfied is in the
     4        future.  All I am saying is that unless and until there is
     5        a plea relating to particular places in Brazil, particular
     6        years, particular areas of the country and particular
     7        quantities, as in due course the Defendants were compelled
     8        to give in relation to Guatemala and Costa Rica, I will not
     9        be satisfied.  Your Lordship may be, and I will have lost
    10        that argument so far as it goes.
    11
    12   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  They were not compelled to give that
    13        information.
    14
    15   MR. RAMPTON:  They were, by order of Master Grant in November
    16        1991.
    17
    18   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  But they have not given it.
    19
    20   MR. RAMPTON:  My Lord, they have given it as best they can.
    21
    22   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  That may be.
    23
    24   MR. RAMPTON:  My Lord, they have.
    25
    26   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Where?
    27
    28   MR. RAMPTON:  Yes, they have.  Starting at page 3.  I have not
    29        got, unfortunately, the full file with all the requests in
    30        it, but the development or the refinement or, what I call,
    31        the compaction of this plea by pressure of request for
    32        particulars took place over a period of time.  Page 3 is
    33        the first attempt.  Page ten is the next attempt and page
    34        11.  Both those attempts were rejected by the court.
    35
    36   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  So far we have not gone any further than what
    37        was in the original particulars on page 3.
    38
    39   MR. RAMPTON:  No, but on page 12 we do; at the bottom of page 11
    40        and page 12 we do.  Then finally, in relation to Costa
    41        Rica -----
    42
    43   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Do we have an equivalent for Guatemala?
    44
    45   MR. RAMPTON:  No.  The rest reference to Guatemala is, I think,
    46        page 12, though that is less of a problem because the years
    47        have been specified earlier on, I believe.
    48
    49   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  It is quite true the years, but the main
    50        point I am getting at now is they have not pleaded in 
    51        relation to Guatemala, and yet Guatemala is still in -- 
    52        where in Guatemala the beef came from.  They have not been 
    53        put to the sword on that, and an application has not been
    54        made to strike them out on the basis that they are relying
    55        not only in relation to Guatemala on ex-rainforest land but
    56        other land by their indirect route.  Now, if I am wrong
    57        about that point it out.
    58
    59        I agree there is more in relation to Costa Rica, but even
    60        then it is support for their indirect link argument.  It

Prev Next Index