Day 251 - 17 May 96 - Page 34


     
     1        whatever the evidence since, they cannot rely on what might
     2        have gone into that amendment.
     3
     4   MR. RAMPTON:  You never said that.  What I believe your Lordship
     5        said at the time was, since they have not a scintilla of
     6        evidence to support an allegation of direct effect, they
     7        could not have the amendment.  The only problem I would
     8        have -- well, there are two problems.  First I would not
     9        consent to my amendment which I had not first seen and
    10        decided whether to argue.  Secondly, I am a little bit
    11        wary.  I will have to wait and see what is said and I
    12        believe it would have to be quite cleverly, or I should say
    13        carefully perhaps, worded in the light of Miss Branford's
    14        evidence, if it is to overcome the problem.  I would have a
    15        difficulty perhaps in dealing with it, because it has never
    16        been, and it is not now, part of the Defendant's case that
    17        McDonald's have been in any sense responsible for direct
    18        destruction of rain forests in Brazil.
    19
    20   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I am sorry to interrupt you, that is not the
    21        particular point which I have in mind.  The particular
    22        point which the Defendants sought was as follows:
    23        Brazilian beef, some originally from cattle raised on ex
    24        rain forest land or raised in regions causing the
    25        displacement of farmers into Amazon rain forest areas has
    26        been supplied to McDonald's, including McDonald's UK.
    27
    28        I did not allow it in that form.  It then went on into some
    29        more detail.  The form I allowed was:  Brazilian beef,
    30        raised in regions causing the displacement of farmers into
    31        Amazon forest areas has been supplied to McDonald's in
    32        Brazil and to McDonald's UK.  In other words, I did not
    33        allow that part of the amendment sought which said
    34        "Brazilian beef" and then these are the important words
    35         "some originally from cattle raised on ex rain forest
    36        land".
    37
    38   MR. RAMPTON:  You did not, no.  That is quite right.
    39
    40   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  This morning I have heard evidence which, if
    41        it had been in a statement form in July 1995, might well
    42        have caused me to reach a different view as to whether that
    43        amendment should have been allowed.  The reason I am
    44        raising it now is, if it is going to be said for instance
    45         -- let me put it this way, were I to draw the conclusion
    46        from a combination of what I know from Senor Morganti's
    47        civil evidence act statements and what I have heard from
    48        Miss Branford this morning, that some of the beef which
    49        went to Braslo came from cattle raised on ex rain forest
    50        land, that is in the areas, let us say, down in the general 
    51        area of the river she mentioned, the Araguaia River, what I 
    52        want to know is whether a point would be taken:  Yes, but 
    53        the Defendants cannot rely on that because they do not have
    54        a pleading to cover it.
    55
    56   MR. RAMPTON:  No, certainly not.  I would never take that
    57        point.  The much more serious point I might take is that I
    58        have not dealt with it.  I have dealt with it in
    59        cross-examination, I know what I think the position is and
    60        to say now that I do not think such an amendment would

Prev Next Index