Day 084 - 07 Feb 95 - Page 16


     
     1   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  That is what Ms. Steel has said.
     2
     3   MS. STEEL:  No.  My concern is wider than that.  My concern is
     4        that with a leaflet like that, they have just marked the
     5        whole of it.  Then Mr. Rampton says:  "I can pick and
     6        choose which parts I want to determine".  It is no help to
     7        have the whole of the leaflet marked up and then be told:
     8         "Well, actually, I am not going to contend all of it is
     9        false".
    10
    11   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Right.  In due course, I will hear whatever
    12        Mr. Rampton wants to say about that, not, I suggest, at the
    13        moment.  What about the admissions?  It is partly -- I am
    14        happy to confess -- for my education but also it may help
    15        if the Defendants just hear you say it quite shortly.
    16
    17   MR. RAMPTON:  My Lord, it is, happily, we believe a very
    18        straightforward question:  Where a party (and this, if
    19        I may say it, might be a slightly rough and ready way of
    20        putting it) makes an admission (and, in our submission, it
    21        does not matter whether the admission is in the pleading or
    22        by way of formal notice which is the way we have done it
    23        or, indeed, by way of witness statement or by evidence in
    24        court) that such and such an allegation or assertion made
    25        against him by the opposite party is true in the terms in
    26        which it is put, so far as determination of the factual
    27        content of that issue is concerned, that is an end of the
    28        matter and further evidence either for or against the
    29        matter admitted is excluded.
    30
    31        There may be a variety of reasons why a party makes an
    32        admission; most often it will be to save time and cost at
    33        trial.  What this means, by way of example, is that since
    34        what the Defendants have pleaded in relation to the Preston
    35        incident in 1991 has been admitted in the same terms as it
    36        has been alleged, all factual evidence relating to that
    37        issue, as to its causes and its effects, is excluded.
    38
    39        It follows from that, by way of example, that though
    40        Mr. Morris may wish to put a Civil Evidence Act on to some
    41        report or other about the incident, that report becomes
    42        irrelevant because the fact has been admitted.
    43
    44        What does not follow from an admission of a factual
    45        allegation, unless it is done expressly, is that such
    46        reasonable inferences as may be drawn from those facts are
    47        excluded; they are not.  Thus, it was, I suspect, though
    48        your Lordship said way back that whilst documents relating
    49        to the causes and effects of the Preston outbreak were not
    50        disclosable because there had been an admission and, 
    51        therefore, there was no longer an issue between the 
    52        parties, what was relevant or might be relevant was 
    53        McDonald's reaction, response, to what it has admitted
    54        happened.  That is an example.
    55
    56        It does not preclude the Defendants from saying on the one
    57        hand:  "Well, this is very serious.  One can infer from it
    58        that McDonald's do not take their customers' health
    59        seriously".  It does not precludes me from saying:  "Yes,
    60        it happened but one swallow does not a make summer and,

Prev Next Index