Day 083 - 06 Feb 95 - Page 39
1 reason for that is that by constant pressure for proper
2 particulars, the Defendants were eventually driven before
3 the late Master Grant on 6th November 1991 to state
4 expressly that their case under this head of the Defence
5 was limited to Industria De Ganaderos Guatemaltecos which
6 is the Guatemala packing plant and another one -- sorry,
7 that is at a place in Guatemala, and to Montecillos
8 Co-operative in Costa Rica. That has remained the position
9 from that day in November 1991 until this day in February
10 1995.
11
12 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Except that it has been discovered since then
13 that there is the 80 tonnes to this country.
14
15 MR. RAMPTON: My Lord, on the pleadings, that is the beginning
16 and the end of the Defendants' case and, therefore, the
17 beginning and the end of the Plaintiffs' obligation for
18 discovery in relation to the rainforest question, Costa
19 Rica and Guatemala, for those given years. That arises, as
20 I say, from the Defendants' own express statement that
21 their case was so limited; a position which they have not
22 changed to this day apart from the windfall, if I can call
23 it that, of the Vesty letter about Brazil.
24
25 But they, being Defendants justifying a libel, must find a
26 sensible or reasonable basis, whether first, second or
27 third hand, for what they now seek to allege about Brazil.
28 So, far they have nothing. They are not entitled to
29 achieve something better than nothing by trawling the
30 Plaintiffs' files for discovery.
31
32 It matters not that Dr. Gomez Gonzales said that he did not
33 know about the 80 tonnes. It matters not that David Walker
34 for reasons of his own -- he certainly was not asked --
35 volunteered some documents relevant to that Brazilian
36 shipment. The Defendants have no foundation at all -- and
37 the Court of Appeal did not say that no foundation at all
38 was the basis for discovery -- for a case against the
39 Plaintiffs in relation to Brazil.
40
41 My Lord, that said, I would submit with some emphasis that
42 the ruling your Lordship made (and which I acceded to;
43 perhaps I should not have done) on 20th December in
44 relation to Brazil was the limit of it. We agreed, or your
45 Lordship ordered -- never mind, it is done now, though
46 I suppose, as the Defendants would, I might ask your
47 Lordship to review that decision, but I will not -- we have
48 accepted that we have to try see if McDonald's in Brazil or
49 anywhere else have any documents relevant to the question:
50 Where did those Vesty shipments come from?
51
52 But, my Lord, beyond that there is no basis on which we can
53 be asked to make a further discovery in relation to Brazil
54 at any time. The Defendants have not made (and cannot make
55 because they do not have the materials on which to make it)
56 any positive allegation about the Plaintiffs' use of beef
57 from Brazil, whether in Brazil or outside Brazil. It is no
58 good Mr. Morris or Ms. Steel standing up and mouthing what
59 one might call "environmental generalities"; that will not
60 do. What they have to do is to assert with materials a
