Day 087 - 10 Feb 95 - Page 46
1 all fours with what is pleaded. To what extent then, one
2 asks in either case, is any discovery necessary?
3
4 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I think it is fair to take them as
5 admissions. If one was judging the matter on balance of
6 probabilities and just read those, I think it would
7 certainly pass the 50 per cent mark.
8
9 MR. RAMPTON: In that case, that is all I am saying. Your
10 Lordship has said it more neatly than I have. All I am
11 saying is that this is not a contest when it comes to a
12 decision of the issue, which means there is absolutely no
13 purpose served -- in relation to one of the incidents I am
14 told that there are something like six to eight bankers'
15 boxes of documents, and if your Lordship is inclined to
16 read these paragraphs of Mr. Rummel as an admission, why
17 then, it could not conceivably be said that this discovery
18 was necessary for the fair disposal of the action or the
19 saving of costs.
20
21 MS. STEEL: There are actually bits in the pleading about Oregon
22 that specifically mention eating McDonald's hamburgers, and
23 it does not actually say that in paragraph 3 of
24 Mr. Rummel's statement. It just says "after eating at
25 McDonald's".
26
27 MR. RAMPTON: Does it matter whether it is hamburgers,
28 filet-o-fish, McNuggets, french fries, salad or whatever?
29 The fact is that if that is an admission it is an admission
30 that McDonald's food caused the illness. So far as that is
31 concerned, my Lord, that is a generality.
32
33 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I would go further than that. If an
34 allegation is made, as at the top of page 4, and the
35 Plaintiffs come up in relation to Oregon with what is in
36 Mr. Rummel's statement and that is the end of it, I have no
37 trouble at all finding that on balance of probabilities the
38 Defendants have proved what they have alleged in their
39 pleadings. If you want to argue that that is not so,
40 then ----
41
42 MR. RAMPTON: No, I do not and I would not do. My argument in
43 relation to these two incidents is what they provide by way
44 of justification of the libel, even if proved, which is
45 quite different. That is a matter for argument. It is not
46 a matter of evidence at all.
47
48 MS. STEEL: I think this is the whole point really, that these
49 particular pleadings about Oregon and about Preston are
50 part of the wider pleading about meat being responsible for
51 the majority of cases of food poisoning. Therefore,
52 documents, even though the individual instances are ----
53
54 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Why are you addressing me at the moment?
55 I am listening to Mr. Rampton's answer to what has been put
56 forward. When we get to the end you will have an
57 opportunity to reply to him. We have to take it in the
58 normal form.
59
60 MR. RAMPTON: My Lord, then I pass on, if I may, to cooking
