Day 164 - 26 Sep 95 - Page 27


     
     1        I think perhaps it does not matter for these purposes.
     2        It is yellow XIII.  This is a Civil Evidence Act statement.
     3
     4   MR. RAMPTON:  It is, my Lord, yes.  I think it has, in fact,
     5        been sworn.
     6
     7   MR. MORRIS:  There are two questions I have to say.  If no
     8        reports exist, then Mr. Richard Marcheid has not any
     9        evidence to offer the court.
    10
    11   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I am only interested in discovery at the
    12        moment.
    13
    14   MR. MORRIS:  Yes, I understand.
    15
    16   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I am not interested in where we go if the
    17        situation is that there is no statement or none is
    18        produced.  More, I do not believe that they have not got a
    19        copy of the report.  I think there may be an administrative
    20        trick going on here.
    21
    22        If we look in Mr. Marcheid's statement in the second page,
    23        third paragraph ---
    24
    25   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes.
    26
    27   MR. MORRIS:  -- as I wrote to the Plaintiffs on 18th September,
    28        the third paragraph, third line refers to a full study
    29        report, "results documented in the full study report".
    30        Then in the fifth paragraph it starts:  "At the conclusion
    31        of the study", "We summarised the background, scope,
    32        objectives, methodology and analytical results in a final
    33        report".  I believe there would have been a full study
    34        report which would have had all the data, and a final
    35        report which would have analysed that data in a form to be
    36        given to McDonald's.  In fact, McDonald's -----
    37
    38   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  That is not how I read it.  I had identified
    39        the final report -- he says:  "We summarised the
    40        background, scope, objectives, methodology and analytical
    41        results in a final report".  I read it as there being a
    42        final report which included an executive summary.  Rightly
    43        or wrongly, this is his Civil Evidence Act evidence.  He
    44        says that that is the document which we have got in our
    45        bundle, i.e. the executive summary, but that is all for
    46        argument in due course if it is thought that it will really
    47        help me to resolve an issue in this case.
    48
    49   MR. MORRIS:  As long it is clear that the Plaintiffs are saying
    50        now publicly that they have none of those documents 
    51        mentioned in the statement of Mr. Richard Marcheid except 
    52        the executive summary.  Can we just ask Mr. Rampton to 
    53        clarify that?
    54
    55   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Just pause for a moment.
    56
    57   MR. RAMPTON:  It is very clear, my Lord.  I said that on
    58        instructions (because I had enquiries made at the time when
    59        Mr. Stein was here) McDonald's themselves have none of the
    60        original study or report, call it what you like, whether it

Prev Next Index