Day 186 - 10 Nov 95 - Page 32


     
     1        multinationals in general, by focusing on McDonald's as an
     2        example to show in its entirety what is wrong with the
     3        multinational companies which have such a massive influence
     4        over our lives and over the planet, and also because,
     5        although people do know these things, they are bombarded
     6        with conflicting information by people with vested
     7        interests such as food companies and, as a result, they may
     8        sometimes begin to doubt the advice of health authorities.
     9
    10   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes.
    11
    12   MS. STEEL:  I do not really know whether I need to deal with it;
    13        I did have some things to say about the proposal by Mr.
    14        Rampton that you could take what was supposedly Mr. Justice
    15        Drake's interpretation of the meaning.  I mean, firstly, I
    16        would submit that it does not explicitly state there that
    17        is what he thought the meaning of the leaflet was, as
    18        opposed to how he was expressing the Plaintiffs' Statement
    19        of Claim.  Therefore, I think it should be completely
    20        disregarded in any event as an argument that he was putting
    21        over his own view of what the leaflet said.
    22
    23        I can go on further if you want, which is that on that day
    24        when that hearing took place, firstly, I think Mr. Rampton
    25        said it was about the second hearing, to my recollection.
    26
    27   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  No, are you talking about Drake J.?
    28
    29   MS. STEEL:   Yes.
    30
    31   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  No.  I think it is a perfectly valid forensic
    32        move Mr. Rampton to make, but at the end of the day
    33        I cannot be affected by what Drake J.'s impression might
    34        have been.  I have got to decide what the ordinary and
    35        reasonable reader's interpretation would be.  I think it
    36        was Neill L.J. in Mrs. Gillick's case who said that the
    37        judge was entitled to, if not bound, to take his own, the
    38        impression it made on him.  But I do not think that extends
    39        so far as saying i am entitled, let alone bound, to take
    40        into account the impression it made on another judge.
    41
    42   MS. STEEL:   Right.  The point I am making is that we do not
    43        even know that that was his impression.
    44
    45   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  No, I would not worry about that point
    46        anyway.
    47
    48   MS. STEEL:   OK.
    49
    50   MR. MORRIS:  Just on that last point:  What Mr. Rampton does not 
    51        know probably was that a skeleton argument was given to the 
    52        judge at that hearing, which we did not know about.  It was 
    53        not given to us and it was not mentioned in court.  It only
    54        came out later.  This was something we brought up at the
    55        Court of Appeal when we appealed against Drake J.'s ruling
    56        on the order of witness statements and discovery.  In fact
    57        we had no opportunity to put over our meaning and counter
    58        that skeleton argument.  We did not get a copy of it.
    59
    60   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I can not make up my own mind according to

Prev Next Index