Day 083 - 06 Feb 95 - Page 36
1 last week. The first question is whether you should list
2 any documents and if they are relevant or arguably relevant
3 to an issue, you should do that. You can then say: "But,
4 look, now you know what the documents are, really don't ask
5 us to go chasing all around the Pacific rim because it is
6 not necessary to do that for the fair disposal of the case
7 or saving cost". That is stage two, is it not?
8
9 MR. RAMPTON: I am just wondering whether your Lordship is right
10 about that and I should be able to give the answer off the
11 top of my head. But my recollection is -----
12
13 MR. JUSTICE BELL: The burden is -- my summary may not be
14 entirely right because what you can say is: "Even if they
15 are relevant, if we can demonstrate to you that their
16 disclosure is not necessary for the fair disposal", the
17 burden is on you at that stage.
18
19 MR. RAMPTON: Your Lordship jumped two fences at once because
20 there are two stages. There is the discovery stage where
21 the burden is on me and there is the inspection stage where
22 the burden is on the Defendants. That, I think, does
23 emerge not from the Dolling-Baker case but from a recent
24 decision at first instance. I forget which case it is. It
25 is either the decision of Mr. Justice Lightman or someone
26 else; I cannot remember who. The first stage is Order 24,
27 Rule 8, where burden is on me where it says: "Discovery",
28 not inspection, "to be ordered only if necessary for the
29 fair disposal of the case or the saving of costs".
30
31 What I have in mind, my Lord, is this: It may be a
32 marginal issue in the case whether the Plaintiffs' use of
33 meat in countries which have rainforests has some kind of
34 indirect impact on the ecologies of the rainforests areas
35 of those countries. One would have to look at the amount
36 of usage in each of those countries, if this were the
37 issue, and determine what percentage of the country's total
38 beef usage the Plaintiffs' usage constituted. Your
39 Lordship has the figures for Costa Rica and it is something
40 under one per cent.
41
42 When one casts one's mind back to the pamphlet and what is
43 there said about McDonald's treatment of the rainforests,
44 then, my Lord, one is, I would respectfully submit, driven
45 to say that the case which the Defendants have raised by
46 way of defence on the rainforest issue is of the most
47 marginal significance.
48
49 I do not want to have to make this submission at this
50 stage, but if driven to it I will, because I am determined
51 that the Defendants should not use this case as a means of
52 causing aggravation and expense to McDonald's
53 unnecessarily. But if I do have to, I will make the
54 submission that really the Defence in this area of the case
55 is doomed to failure. If necessary, I will have to ask
56 your Lordship to strike it out because one looks back at
57 the leaflet and one finds on the second page this: "Why is
58 it wrong for McDonald's to destroy rainforests?" Under
59 "pet food and environment/index.html">litter": "McDonald's and Burger King are
60 two of the many US corporations using", not indirectly
