Day 083 - 06 Feb 95 - Page 38


     
     1        phrase.  If asked for the purposes of something other than
     2        the contract?
     3
     4   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes, well, if asked for the purposes of these
     5        proceedings.
     6
     7   MR. RAMPTON:  Yes.  That would certainly limit it.  But, my
     8        Lord, I remind your Lordship -- in one sense now I repeat
     9        myself -- the issue on Brazil arose because the Defendants
    10        have some evidence, thanks to a mistake in the solicitors'
    11        office, which disproves their case on Brazil.  That is the
    12        first point.
    13
    14   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  You say that; at the moment again I am not at
    15        this stage offering any view on it one way or another, but
    16        they say "no".
    17
    18   MR. RAMPTON:  No, my Lord.  They cannot say "no", with respect.
    19        They are Defendants driven to justify a libel.
    20
    21   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes.
    22
    23   MR. RAMPTON:  In what I might call a quarter baked attempt to do
    24        that, they allege that the Plaintiffs' use of beef in
    25        certain countries (and I will come back to this in a
    26        moment) causes indirect damage to the environment.  They
    27        cannot (because there is no evidence and it would be
    28        impossible for them to do so) allege that the Plaintiffs
    29        directly interfere with the rainforests anywhere in the
    30        world.  So, that is abandoned, that part of the leaflet.
    31
    32        As a fall-back, perhaps with an eye principally to
    33        reduction of damages originally, they say:  "Oh, well, the
    34        fact that you encourage beef production may have an adverse
    35        effect on the environment".  They are confined, because of
    36        what has been pleaded, originally to two countries,
    37        Guatemala and Costa Rica.
    38
    39   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  It starts at the bottom of the first extract
    40        in tab 1, does it not?  I think it would help me if you
    41        have it.
    42
    43   MR. RAMPTON:  Yes, my Lord, but this is where one may run into
    44        difficulties if one forgets what orders have been made
    45        along the way.  If your Lordship looks at the particulars
    46        given on page 3 of tab 1, one sees that the allegations
    47        are, in fact, limited to Costa Rica and Guatemala,
    48        Guatemala and Costa Rica, in certain years.  After the
    49        request is set out on page 8, one finds it further on on
    50        pages 10 and 11, then further on page 12, the case becoming 
    51        progressively more refined -- I will remind your Lordship 
    52        of the reason for that in a moment. 
    53
    54        Aside from the allegation that meat from Central America is
    55        exported for the Plaintiffs' use in the United States, once
    56        again the Defendants have what one might call a somewhat
    57        transparent -- in two senses it is a slight pun because it
    58        is the "Jungle Burger" film -- basis, aside from that, they
    59        are confined on the pleadings to Costa Rica and Guatemala
    60        in certain years, certain specified years.  My Lord, the

Prev Next Index