Day 083 - 06 Feb 95 - Page 52
1
2 MR. MORRIS: I do not think it is for no purpose. I think it is
3 for an extremely important part of the case. I think
4 everybody in this court would recognise that we feel very
5 strongly about this issue.
6
7 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I appreciate that, but why not make some
8 enquiry of the 1989 list to say, "Were you supplying in
9 1979, 1983 or 1984"?
10
11 MR. MORRIS: That I had not thought of, but the point was it is
12 our belief that the mid-80s are the most relevant years.
13 The documents disclosed with the so-called Duke of
14 Edinburgh dispute were maybe from 15 suppliers, but they
15 may have had 100 replies from different suppliers and only
16 put in the 15 that satisfied them, that conformed with any
17 policy they are now claiming.
18
19 We can contact the 1989 suppliers but, really, what we need
20 is a list, and preferably documentation from the years
21 pleaded in the case. It is possible McDonald's did change
22 their policy in 1989, effectively. I do not know, but
23 certainly they should provide a list of the relevant years
24 if, as they have done, they are going to rely on Civil
25 Evidence Act documents at a later date. If I phone up the
26 suppliers and say "Hello, this is Dave Morris from London
27 Greenpeace, we are in a dispute with McDonald's", they are
28 hardly going to give me information that conflicts ----
29
30 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Well, does that not apply to 1979, 1983 and
31 1984 once you have a list?
32
33 MS. STEEL: We would not make the enquiries with the
34 companies. We would be making them with other people who
35 have done research into that area.
36
37 MR. MORRIS: Yes. There may be knowledge that is in the public
38 realm, but I think the court can be rest assured that if we
39 do a list or any information from the 1980s or 1979 it will
40 be followed up.
41
42 MR. RAMPTON: My Lord, there is a list of main suppliers for
43 1983 to be found at tab 52.
44
45 MR. JUSTICE BELL: If I may just think allowed, Mr. Rampton.
46 The situation maybe this, that if there are any relevant
47 documents in the First or Second Plaintiffs' custody,
48 possession or power in relation to those years, then they
49 should have been disclosed and it is reasonable to infer,
50 if they have not been, that they do not exist. When one
51 comes on to lists of suppliers, that is a request which
52 would really be the subject of an interrogatory. It is not
53 at the moment, but the reality of the situation is if
54 Mr. Cesca comes into the witness box in July no list having
55 been supplied and the Defendants say, "Who was supplying
56 you in 1979, 1983 or 1984", that is a question he should
57 answer. If I am right about that, the last thing we want
58 is that information appearing for the first time in July,
59 is it not?
60
