Day 057 - 29 Nov 94 - Page 18
1 other aspects, even if the amendment is allowed, maybe all
2 of it will be proven, he will say: "Oh, so what? It is
3 only linked, causally linked, in one aspect; it does not
4 actually trigger the disease".
5
6 So, no doubt we shall be hearing more from Mr. Rampton on
7 that again because he is not clarifying what he means.
8
9 MR. JUSTICE BELL: It is not what he means that the amendment
10 deals with. It is what the leaflet means.
11
12 MR. MORRIS: Yes, but it is what he says the leaflet means.
13
14 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I have to say "cause" is a perfectly simple
15 English word. You can cause things in a variety of ways.
16 What Mr. Rampton is saying is that does not necessarily
17 matter to the reader; it is what he actually gets from the
18 leaflet. If he gets from the leaflet that eating
19 McDonald's meals, or a sufficient number of McDonald's
20 meals to affect his diet, causes cancer, that is sufficient
21 measure. It does not matter in any event just what the
22 route is. But the point is anyway we are just dealing with
23 the meaning of the leaflet at the moment.
24
25 MS. STEEL: If we are just dealing with the meaning of the
26 leaflet, how does amending the Statement of Claim clarify
27 the issues in the case?
28
29 MR. MORRIS: The Plaintiffs -----
30
31 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Look, just complete what you want to say in
32 reply to Mr. Rampton, then I am going to consider
33 everything which was been said and, in due course, give my
34 decision with reasons. I do not want to descend into an
35 argument with you. In so far as I have intervened in the
36 past, you will just have to accept that was with a view to
37 trying to draw your argument out. So, if there is anything
38 more you want to say, say it now. Then I am going to take
39 time to consider the matter and, as I have said, give my
40 decisions and reasons in due course.
41
42 MR. MORRIS: Mr. Rampton also said if somebody eats McDonald's
43 food, the meaning is, it is probably going to kill you.
44 So, it is clear to us that their pleadings do not clarify
45 the issue; that they are trying to imply a wild meaning to
46 make our job more difficult.
47
48 He said that in answer to the request that we made (or we
49 make) to clarify what he means in his alleged
50 clarification, he did not have to go into the state of the
51 evidence. We were not asking him to go into the state of
52 the evidence. We are asking for clarification on what they
53 say the meaning is.
54
55 We do feel that the whole application has been turned
56 around so that we have been put to burden to justify our
57 state of mind, and to explain our very detailed pleadings,
58 and it was helpful for us to explain what we meant by
59 "link". In fact, the Plaintiffs who brought this late
60 amendment four years after their pleadings basically have
