Day 083 - 06 Feb 95 - Page 33
1 said it was couriered to the United States for confirmation
2 about whether it was the Braslo map or not; does that mean
3 it was a map that was actually in the possession of
4 McDonald's UK and that it did not come from Braslo in the
5 first place?
6
7 MR. RAMPTON: I do not know the answer to that question; even if
8 I did, I would not answer it because at the moment, as
9 I say, the map is not relevant to any issue in the action.
10 In any case, it is a privileged enquiry.
11
12 MR. JUSTICE BELL: When you say it is not relevant to any issue
13 in the action, tell me what you mean by that, Mr. Rampton.
14
15 MR. RAMPTON: Your Lordship ruled on 20th December, thus far at
16 least, the only issue so far as Brazil is concerned is
17 whether the Vesty meat in 1983/1984, 82.something tonnes
18 came from any part of Brazil that was or had recently been
19 rainforest land. That coloured map has no connection or
20 relevance to the sources of the Vesty meat. Vesty and
21 Braslo are two completely distinct companies.
22
23 There is at present, nor do I know of any foundation on
24 which there could be in the future, any allegation that any
25 of the meat which Braslo uses to supply McDonald's comes
26 from any rainforest or had come from any rainforest area of
27 Brazil.
28
29 MR. JUSTICE BELL: My concern about that I hinted at a little
30 this morning. The reasoning behind the order which I made
31 on 20th December was that I could not see that the
32 Defendants had any basis for suggesting that more than 80
33 tonnes had come from Brazil to McDonald's. I went on to
34 say, although I told the Defendants on more than one
35 occasion that I will, in fact, keep an open mind as to that
36 and consider any argument they put, I could not at that
37 time see that 80 tonnes of beef even translated into how
38 many more head of cattle it was could have an indirect
39 effect on the rainforests of Brazil if it did not come from
40 what was recently rainforest land.
41
42 The Defendants took a point during argument that there
43 might be more than 80 tonnes going to either the First or
44 Second Plaintiff, more than 80 tonnes of Brazil beef -- put
45 on one side for moment whether from ex-rainforest land or
46 not because Dr. Gomez Gonzales did not know about that 80
47 tonnes and there might be more which he did not know
48 about-- and I was not impressed with that on 20th December.
49
50 Since then we have had evidence from Mr. David Walker,
51 Chief Executive of the Second Plaintiff's suppliers of beef
52 products in this country, that he did not know of any
53 policy not to import beef from Brazil when he set about
54 arranging the import of the 80 tonnes in 1983. He
55 discovered that only in May 1983 when the first beef was
56 about to come.
57
58 In the light of that and in any event on further
59 reflection, it occurred to me that it could be said that
60 there are the following matters in issue, whichever way the
