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

Prev Next Index