Day 053 - 22 Nov 94 - Page 47


     
     1        give me some guidance and come to a conclusion.
     2
     3   MS. STEEL:  Yes, I appreciate that.
     4
     5   MR. MORRIS:  I think, if I can put a parallel, maybe:  If we
     6        accused somebody of a criminal activity and we have
     7        questioned them about all various forms of criminal
     8        activity, we may have questioned them about murder, because
     9        any form of criminal activity would prove our point that
    10        they have engaged in criminal activity.  But if they then
    11        change their Defence and say that we would have to prove
    12        murder, the fact we had mentioned murder does not show that
    13        that is what we felt was having to be proved.  Obviously,
    14        it is a bit more extreme than this example, but that is our
    15        position, that obviously we considered that "cause" was one
    16        type of link but that it was not one that was necessarily
    17        to be proven.
    18
    19   MS. STEEL:  Obviously, if it was proven, then so much the
    20        better, but it was not actually what we considered as being
    21        necessary to be proven.
    22
    23   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes.  When he replies, Mr. Rampton may
    24        categorically say one way or the other but, as I understand
    25        his submissions -- your submissions are to the contrary --
    26        the way link is used in F was meant to be as "causally
    27        linked".  You say you did not understand it as such.  He
    28        says, well, he thinks you did or appreciated it might have
    29        meant that because you asked quite lot of questions on that
    30        topic.  That is a different issue to what your pleading of
    31        justification actually meant.
    32
    33        In any event, he says, even if there was any
    34        misunderstanding -- he contends there was not -- it is not
    35        too late to replead the matter so that an issue such as
    36        that which he says is important, not only in the
    37        litigation, but from a public point of view, can actually
    38        be adjudicated upon so that I can decide on what the
    39        meaning of the leaflet is, being such meaning as I think it
    40        actually bears up to the meaning set out in the amendment.
    41        I can then decide matters which he contends were important
    42        such as whether, indeed, McDonald's food does or might play
    43        a causative role in causing degenerative diseases or taking
    44        on the risk of suffering degenerative disease at least in
    45        those who eat really quite a lot of their food.
    46
    47        But there we are.  I think we are going back over old
    48        ground; you have made your points.  I propose to go away
    49        and consider them, having heard anything Mr. Rampton wants
    50        to say in reply.  Is there anything more you want to say on 
    51        F before you go on to L, the animals? 
    52 
    53   MS. STEEL:   Yesterday there was a part read out of some of the
    54        old transcripts.  I cannot remember who was giving
    55        evidence, but there was a part read out where I said about
    56        the Plaintiffs "shifting ground".  I would say that from
    57        that, that was a clear indication that, as far as we were
    58        concerned, they were changing their case, and it was quite
    59        apparent that was what was going on.
    60

Prev Next Index