Day 200 - 12 Dec 95 - Page 24
1 admit on the Plaintiffs about the very real risk from a
2 diet high in fat? If they do not respond to that, we
3 should then get witness statements on this subject and call
4 evidence on that?
5
6 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I am sorry. I do not really think I can
7 advise you on that. You must take whichever course you
8 want, but I think you have to grapple with the very real
9 possibility that if you do serve a notice to admit, you
10 will not get the response you want. Therefore, if you want
11 to, you have to think what evidence you would like to call
12 or recall about whether there is a very real risk of
13 suffering heart disease from a diet high in fat and so on,
14 because it is not an easy question.
15
16 MR. MORRIS: Just on that last point, the heart disease:
17 Originally, the Plaintiffs made an admission which was
18 meant to remove the need to bring it up during the case,
19 heart disease as an issue. When they changed their
20 Statement of Claim to include causal risks, they then said
21 that their admission would cover, as far as I remember,
22 causality and, therefore, there was no need to bring
23 evidence in the case.
24
25 As far as we can see, the meaning which you have decided
26 cannot be greater than their original indicated meaning
27 that they were contending for, which they said would not
28 need to bring in any evidence about heart disease. So,
29 obviously, we have the meaning in front of us that we have
30 now, but that is obviously an important consideration, as
31 far as we are concerned, what I just said.
32
33 MR. JUSTICE BELL: The position is that my ruling has said what,
34 in my judgment, the meaning is. It has also said, in my
35 judgment, that meaning is not greater than the meaning
36 which I gave the Plaintiffs leave to plead by way of
37 amendment.
38
39 MS. STEEL: So in that case we do not need to call any evidence
40 because they have admitted that?
41
42 MR. JUSTICE BELL: No. I think it is wrong of you, in my view,
43 to assume that the Defendants have admitted any of what
44 appears in the meaning as I have found it to be. You see,
45 a lot of this is now past history because, at very best,
46 you and those who represent the Plaintiffs may have had
47 crossed wires about what was being alleged and what was
48 being admitted.
49
50 But I do not see in this case any admission on behalf of
51 the First or Second Plaintiff that a diet high in fat,
52 sugar, animal products and salt (sodium) and low in fibre,
53 vitamins and minerals leads to the very real risk of
54 suffering heart disease.
55
56 MS. STEEL: Can I just say, what Mr. Morris said had slipped my
57 mind about the fact that you cannot find a higher meaning
58 than the one that the Plaintiffs had pleaded. I would have
59 thought, as a matter of law -- I mean, obviously, we are
60 not lawyers so we are going to have to get legal advice on
