Day 107 - 24 Mar 95 - Page 17
1 Evidence Act Notice on a piece of evidence which is not
2 admissible because there is no issue between the parties
3 does not suddenly by some magic trick become admissible.
4 The service of the counter notice becomes totally
5 irrelevant once the admission has been made which makes the
6 evidence inadmissible.
7
8 MR. MORRIS: If you make an admission, as we have been informed
9 before in this court, then the fact is not open to dispute
10 and debate, but the matters surrounding and the conclusions
11 to be drawn and the implications of that are entitled to be
12 aired. They do not have to be pleaded.
13
14 MR. JUSTICE BELL: That, I am afraid, is I think where you have
15 gone wrong. Conclusions which you draw from the facts
16 which have been admitted, and are common ground, clearly
17 have to be aired. You can ask any expert witness about
18 it. But if you allege facts A and B, let us say in this
19 case on the basis of what you see in the PHLS report and
20 they are admitted, that does not mean that you can then
21 adduce evidence of facts C, D, E, F and G which are also in
22 the report which you have not actually pleaded.
23
24 That is why I was careful before to say something to the
25 effect that you should go back to the report and see what
26 amendment of your pleading you needed to bring in -- I am
27 sure I am not using exactly the same words -- matters which
28 you wanted to rely on which were not so far pleaded in
29 relation to Preston. You did that to a limited extent and
30 that was promptly admitted, so it was checked again.
31
32 If there are further matters in the PHLS report which you
33 want to bring out, then you should seek leave to amend in
34 relation to those. Have you actually any kind of statement
35 from the maker of this report?
36
37 MR. MORRIS: We have a statement verifying it was the report.
38
39 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes. What I want you to do ---
40
41 MR. MORRIS: That is why we put a Civil Evidence Act Notice on
42 the -----
43
44 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes -- so that I can see more precisely what
45 you are getting at, I have the report in front of me now,
46 I want you to identify to me the extra facts which you
47 would in due course either like to prove or have admitted
48 in support of your case on this aspect of the matter.
49
50 MS. STEEL: Can I just say something in respect of the
51 pleadings because I think it is important to look at the
52 pleadings? Our original pleadings were: "Meat is
53 responsible for the majority of cases of food poisoning,
54 particularly chicken and minced beef as used in burgers".
55
56 The request was: "State whether it is alleged that the
57 food sold by the Plaintiffs is responsible for giving food
58 poisoning to those who consume it and/or whether it is
59 alleged that the public has a greater chance of being given
60 food poisoning from eating the Plaintiffs' food than other
