Day 087 - 10 Feb 95 - Page 40


     
     1        does not actually state areas.
     2
     3   MR. RAMPTON:  My Lord, it does go on on page 14.  It does not
     4        state areas.  It cannot, is the reason, of course, and it
     5        is a case which turns around in a great big circle because
     6        a case which is not a case will never become a case.  There
     7        is a further request on page 14.
     8
     9   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Let me read the answer to that again.  Was
    10        Miss Bensilum's answer, as alleged by Mr. Rose, country
    11        specific?
    12
    13   MR. RAMPTON:  Yes.
    14
    15   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Which country was it?
    16
    17   MR. RAMPTON:  Costa Rica and Guatemala.
    18
    19   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Both of them?
    20
    21   MR. RAMPTON:  No, particularly Costa Rica.
    22
    23   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Do you see what ----
    24
    25   MR. RAMPTON:  I am afraid I do not.  I cannot remember whether
    26        it was both, or whether it was just the one.
    27
    28   MS. STEEL:  I think it was just Costa Rica.
    29
    30   MR. RAMPTON:  Even so, by this time the Defendants' case is
    31        confined to Guatemala and Costa Rica.
    32
    33   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes. But were they to ask leave to plead?
    34        This is what I thought they had in mind:  Forget exports,
    35        apart from the 80 tonnes for a moment.  Assume that I agree
    36        with the argument you have put last December and reasserted
    37        only a few days ago about the fact of someone not knowing
    38        of something is no ground for a positive case that it has
    39        happened, what we have in the pleading at the moment is a
    40        case which amounts to saying, among other things, that
    41        McDonald's have supplied their restaurants in Guatemala
    42        with beef, some of which they do not assert came from
    43        ex-rainforest land, and by the indirect route they seek to
    44        specify that could lead to a finding of responsibility or
    45        contribution to destruction of the rainforest by indirect
    46        pressure.  That is how I read their pleading at the
    47        moment.  What I understood they wanted to do, quite apart
    48        from any other course they might take, is plead something
    49        similar with regard to Brazil.  I gave a view in the autumn
    50        of 1993 as to how far I thought that argument would get at 
    51        the end of the day, but the fact is it is still in the 
    52        pleadings. 
    53
    54   MR. RAMPTON:  My Lord, I may have something to say about the
    55        exercise of your Lordship's discretion about what is
    56        necessary for the fair disposal of the case or, indeed, for
    57        the saving of costs when it comes to it, if such a pleading
    58        were allowed.
    59
    60        I have in mind this, that if these Defendants were in

Prev Next Index