Day 083 - 06 Feb 95 - Page 57
1 certainly cannot speculate that it was a case of food
2 poisoning or even potential food poisoning. If I am asked
3 simply to say "yea" or "nay" did this incident happen in
4 the terms described in the Mail on Sunday as a matter of
5 literal fact, if it is so, then it is very likely I will
6 say, yes, of course it did. But one questions where that
7 leads one.
8
9 If, on the other hand, the Defendants want to build
10 inferences on what is asserted in this about McDonald's
11 procedures about the safety of their food and so on, what
12 is alleged in this newspaper article, then they must tell
13 us what they are before I can know whether I am to admit it
14 or make discovery and fight it.
15
16 MR. JUSTICE BELL: But in those respects it is just the same as
17 the allegations which are in tab 5, is it not?
18
19 MR. RAMPTON: No, my Lord. Take Preston, for example. That was
20 a case in which a number of people did actually suffer
21 illness in consequence of the food they ate. It was quite
22 different.
23
24 MR. JUSTICE BELL: It may be different in that respect, but it
25 is the same in the respect of you saying, "Right, so what
26 is the allegation against McDonald's in that respect?"
27
28 MR. RAMPTON: We did ask that in relation to Preston and we were
29 told. Then we got I think a reamended pleading for Preston
30 saying how serious it all was, what a terrible thing, in
31 effect, lots of people suffered serious food poisoning, and
32 we were wrapped over the knuckles by the public health
33 people and so on. We said that we are not inclined to
34 litigate that in the context of this case and, therefore,
35 we admitted it. What this tells one as a matter of
36 relevance to this case I just do not know at the moment.
37
38 MR. JUSTICE BELL: If there is salmonella in there, heavens
39 knows what the truth of the situation was, but that is
40 maybe part of the point of getting discovery. They sold
41 something which was under-cooked.
42
43 MR. RAMPTON: My Lord, I understand that.
44
45 MR. JUSTICE BELL: That is criticism, is it not?
46
47 MR. RAMPTON: Of course it is a criticism, because if it had not
48 been there would not have been salmonella there. If it goes
49 that far this is an allegation I can answer on its face.
50
51 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I am not suggesting you are taking legal
52 points just for the sake of it, but what happens then? The
53 Defendants go away. Having listened to this debate they
54 plead some of the information in the Mail on Sunday
55 article. Having listened to what you have said they have
56 twigged that they must not just say "salmonella" but
57 "under-cooked", must get that word in.
58
59 MR. RAMPTON: Obviously, yes.
60
