Day 083 - 06 Feb 95 - Page 31
1 the Lonrho case.
2
3 MS. STEEL: Right. My concern is that, as we have seen from
4 the documents ------
5
6 MR. JUSTICE BELL: There may be cases where that is so, for
7 instance, the man who can be identified with this company
8 because he owns 99 of 100 shares and his wife owns one, but
9 that is not the situation here. That is Mr. Rampton's
10 argument.
11
12 MS. STEEL: Yes. My concern is that when it suits them the
13 Plaintiffs say that it is their company. For example, when
14 they wanted to import the Brazilian beef, they wrote to the
15 MAFF or Customs & Excise saying that, for all intents and
16 purposes, it is the same company, and that is why
17 Mr. Walker wrote on McDonald's headed notepaper. But when
18 they want to avoid their obligations of giving discovery,
19 they then say: "Oh, no, it is an entirely separate
20 company".
21
22 This flexibility can be used by McDonald's to avoid their
23 responsibilities. Mr. Walker also said that Keystone were
24 told to sell their shares in McKey's. They were told by
25 McDonald's. What would be the case of documents that were
26 owned by McKey's at the time of the alleged libel and so,
27 effectively, only by McDonald's, but because they decide to
28 sell their shares in the company before they actually bring
29 the libel case, they can avoid their obligations? I mean,
30 it seems to me that it is complete manipulation of the law,
31 really.
32
33 To me, it is clear that they have got this relationship
34 with their suppliers where they do expect from their
35 suppliers to be provided with documents as and when they
36 want them, and that if the suppliers do not comply they
37 will terminate contracts, and that McDonald's are currently
38 just trying to escape from having to disclose documents by
39 trying to pretend that they have not got that kind of power
40 over their suppliers. The reality is that it is there in
41 the specifications, they have got the power.
42
43 MR. MORRIS: Can I just say one thing on the specifications? It
44 does appear that the actual content of the specifications
45 does not change, whether it applies, for example, to
46 McKey's, it has not changed because of the different status
47 of McKey's at various times, whether it is owned by
48 Mr. Walker or whether it is owned by McDonald's or some
49 combination, the specifications remain the same.
50
51 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Is there anything more you want to say on
52 that because if there is not we will break off now and come
53 back at 2 o'clock.
54
55 MR. RAMPTON: I do not know if I am strictly entitled to do so
56 but it might help. I am not encouraging the Defendants to
57 think again, but it is important, in my submission, they
58 understand what it is that I am submitting -- I know your
59 Lordship does -- in relation to these specifications,
60 whether they be called contractual or not. What they
