Day 053 - 22 Nov 94 - Page 29


     
     1        it would be that the Plaintiffs thought they were admitting
     2        causal association between a diet of a certain kind and
     3        heart disease, because Professor Crawford had, as you point
     4        out in your skeleton, in July, in his statement, stated
     5        that cardiovascular disease is closely and causally related
     6        to a diet high in saturated fat.  The Plaintiffs have made
     7        an admission.  There was no need, therefore, to call
     8        Professor Crawford to give that evidence.  I appreciate
     9        that is not the construction you put on it, but that might
    10        be what was going on, if we had had an argument as to
    11        whether, for instance, Professor Crawford (the most obvious
    12        example).  I remember I did say something, and we never got
    13        to argue about it, that the admission could not eliminate
    14        Professor Crawford altogether, whatever it meant, because
    15        Professor Crawford dealt with cancer as well as heart
    16        disease.  He had something to say about that.  But if there
    17        had been an argument that it was a waste of time for him to
    18        adduce any evidence on heart disease, I hope it is not with
    19        the wisdom of hindsight when I say I would probably have
    20        said, "Well, that is so if what you are admitting is a
    21        causal association or relationship" -- I forget which of
    22        the two nouns is used in the admission -- "but not if you
    23        are just seeking to admit something more remote than
    24        that."  But there we are.  I understand your argument.
    25
    26   MR. MORRIS:  I would add my own comment that Mr. Rampton is
    27        trying to rewrite history with the benefit of hindsight as
    28        to what he is now saying they meant all along.  That is our
    29        position.
    30
    31   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Is there anything more you wanted to say
    32        about paragraph 6 or on the topic there?  Let us break off
    33        now, anyway.  It is one o'clock.  We will come back at two.
    34
    35                         (Luncheon adjournment)
    36
    37                                                     2.00 p.m.
    38
    39   MS. STEEL:  I was going through the skeleton argument, and then
    40        we got to the section about the admission on heart
    41        disease.  In view of the Plaintiffs' admission yesterday of
    42        a causal association between heart disease and diet, I do
    43        not know whether there is a need to go into all the other
    44        points.
    45
    46   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Let me read 7 again.  Yes?
    47
    48   MS. STEEL:  We still want what is in the skeleton argument to
    49        stand, because we do not actually accept that their
    50        admission was always intended to be an admission of a 
    51        causal relationship.  But the fact that they have now 
    52        admitted that does mean, perhaps, that it is not worth 
    53        going through the section specifically on heart disease.
    54
    55   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  No.  I will include it as part of your
    56        submissions, in any event.
    57
    58   MS. STEEL:   Going on to point 9, we do feel very strongly that
    59        the Plaintiffs are being misleading in trying to claim that
    60        the proposed amendments simply reflect the way they have

Prev Next Index