Day 053 - 22 Nov 94 - Page 10
1 MS. STEEL: Of the amendment, yes.
2
3 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Page 13. What I have done is I have put
4 brackets around the words in the original pleading, "the
5 contents of an average McDonald's meal are linked with
6 cancers of the breast and bowel and heart disease", and
7 I have put brackets round, in subparagraph 1, "sell meats
8 which cause cancer of the breast and bowel and heart
9 disease in their customers", because that is the heart of
10 the change, if there is one, between the original pleading
11 and the proposed amendment. The bits before you get to the
12 contents of an average McDonald's meal and subparagraph 2
13 of the proposed amendment might be thought to be saying
14 much the same thing. So that there has not on any view
15 been a change of tack.
16
17 MS. STEEL: Except that "despite knowing that that is an
18 accepted medical fact" does not appear in the -----
19
20 MR. JUSTICE BELL: It does. I accept that that is an extra
21 gloss.
22
23 MS. STEEL: And also because that part, "despite knowing that",
24 i.e. number 1.
25
26 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes. It is obviously related to that. I am
27 not saying that you should not have something to say about
28 subparagraph 2, if and when you want to, but at the moment
29 we are really concentrating on the bits which, for clarity
30 in my own mind, I have referred to, putting in brackets.
31
32 As another way of looking at it, would there be any
33 difference between the words to which I have referred to
34 putting in brackets if the word "causally" was put before
35 "linked" in the original pleading?
36
37 MS. STEEL: Yes, there would be, because the original pleading
38 says "the contents of an average McDonald's meal", which is
39 the fat, fibre, et cetera, contents; and it is vastly
40 different to say that the fat and fibre are causally linked
41 to cancer and heart disease and saying that the meals are
42 linked to cancer and heart disease.
43
44 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Is there any difference in substance, then?
45
46 MS. STEEL: Yes, because -----
47
48 MR. JUSTICE BELL: If it is meals which causes cancer of the
49 breast and bowel and heart disease in their customers, it
50 must be the contents of those meals which do it, because
51 the meals cannot do it in any other way, can they?
52
53 MS. STEEL: Well, no, because it implies that it is the meal
54 itself that is causing the cancer and heart disease, as
55 opposed to the fact that it is a high-fat/low-fibre diet
56 and the contribution those meals make to that diet.
57
58 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I must say that is a sophisticated
59 distinction which I had not particularly seen.
60
