Day 083 - 06 Feb 95 - Page 33


     
     1        said it was couriered to the United States for confirmation
     2        about whether it was the Braslo map or not; does that mean
     3        it was a map that was actually in the possession of
     4        McDonald's UK and that it did not come from Braslo in the
     5        first place?
     6
     7   MR. RAMPTON:  I do not know the answer to that question; even if
     8        I did, I would not answer it because at the moment, as
     9        I say, the map is not relevant to any issue in the action.
    10        In any case, it is a privileged enquiry.
    11
    12   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  When you say it is not relevant to any issue
    13        in the action, tell me what you mean by that, Mr. Rampton.
    14
    15   MR. RAMPTON:  Your Lordship ruled on 20th December, thus far at
    16        least, the only issue so far as Brazil is concerned is
    17        whether the Vesty meat in 1983/1984, 82.something tonnes
    18        came from any part of Brazil that was or had recently been
    19        rainforest land.  That coloured map has no connection or
    20        relevance to the sources of the Vesty meat.  Vesty and
    21        Braslo are two completely distinct companies.
    22
    23        There is at present, nor do I know of any foundation on
    24        which there could be in the future, any allegation that any
    25        of the meat which Braslo uses to supply McDonald's comes
    26        from any rainforest or had come from any rainforest area of
    27        Brazil.
    28
    29   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  My concern about that I hinted at a little
    30        this morning.  The reasoning behind the order which I made
    31        on 20th December was that I could not see that the
    32        Defendants had any basis for suggesting that more than 80
    33        tonnes had come from Brazil to McDonald's.  I went on to
    34        say, although I told the Defendants on more than one
    35        occasion that I will, in fact, keep an open mind as to that
    36        and consider any argument they put, I could not at that
    37        time see that 80 tonnes of beef even translated into how
    38        many more head of cattle it was could have an indirect
    39        effect on the rainforests of Brazil if it did not come from
    40        what was recently rainforest land.
    41
    42        The Defendants took a point during argument that there
    43        might be more than 80 tonnes going to either the First or
    44        Second Plaintiff, more than 80 tonnes of Brazil beef -- put
    45        on one side for moment whether from ex-rainforest land or
    46        not because Dr. Gomez Gonzales did not know about that 80
    47        tonnes and there might be more which he did not know
    48        about-- and I was not impressed with that on 20th December.
    49
    50        Since then we have had evidence from Mr. David Walker, 
    51        Chief Executive of the Second Plaintiff's suppliers of beef 
    52        products in this country, that he did not know of any 
    53        policy not to import beef from Brazil when he set about
    54        arranging the import of the 80 tonnes in 1983.  He
    55        discovered that only in May 1983 when the first beef was
    56        about to come.
    57
    58        In the light of that and in any event on further
    59        reflection, it occurred to me that it could be said that
    60        there are the following matters in issue, whichever way the

Prev Next Index