Day 053 - 22 Nov 94 - Page 10


     
     1   MS. STEEL:  Of the amendment, yes.
     2
     3   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Page 13.  What I have done is I have put
     4        brackets around the words in the original pleading, "the
     5        contents of an average McDonald's meal are linked with
     6        cancers of the breast and bowel and heart disease", and
     7        I have put brackets round, in subparagraph 1, "sell meats
     8        which cause cancer of the breast and bowel and heart
     9        disease in their customers", because that is the heart of
    10        the change, if there is one, between the original pleading
    11        and the proposed amendment.  The bits before you get to the
    12        contents of an average McDonald's meal and subparagraph 2
    13        of the proposed amendment might be thought to be saying
    14        much the same thing.  So that there has not on any view
    15        been a change of tack.
    16
    17   MS. STEEL:   Except that "despite knowing that that is an
    18        accepted medical fact" does not appear in the -----
    19
    20   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  It does.  I accept that that is an extra
    21        gloss.
    22
    23   MS. STEEL:   And also because that part, "despite knowing that",
    24        i.e. number 1.
    25
    26   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes.  It is obviously related to that.  I am
    27        not saying that you should not have something to say about
    28        subparagraph 2, if and when you want to, but at the moment
    29        we are really concentrating on the bits which, for clarity
    30        in my own mind, I have referred to, putting in brackets.
    31
    32        As another way of looking at it, would there be any
    33        difference between the words to which I have referred to
    34        putting in brackets if the word "causally" was put before
    35        "linked" in the original pleading?
    36
    37   MS. STEEL:  Yes, there would be, because the original pleading
    38        says "the contents of an average McDonald's meal", which is
    39        the fat, fibre, et cetera, contents; and it is vastly
    40        different to say that the fat and fibre are causally linked
    41        to cancer and heart disease and saying that the meals are
    42        linked to cancer and heart disease.
    43
    44   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Is there any difference in substance, then?
    45
    46   MS. STEEL:  Yes, because -----
    47
    48   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  If it is meals which causes cancer of the
    49        breast and bowel and heart disease in their customers, it
    50        must be the contents of those meals which do it, because 
    51        the meals cannot do it in any other way, can they? 
    52 
    53   MS. STEEL:  Well, no, because it implies that it is the meal
    54        itself that is causing the cancer and heart disease, as
    55        opposed to the fact that it is a high-fat/low-fibre diet
    56        and the contribution those meals make to that diet.
    57
    58   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I must say that is a sophisticated
    59        distinction which I had not particularly seen.
    60

Prev Next Index