Day 053 - 22 Nov 94 - Page 27
1
2 Secondly, there is a much greater cost to us. Mr. Rampton
3 and his team are here because it is their job to be here --
4 unless of course Mr. Rampton wants to tell us he is doing
5 the case for McDonald's for free -- and if Mr. Rampton and
6 his legal team were not in this court, were not being paid
7 to be in this court, they would just be in another court.
8 So it makes little difference to them how long this case
9 goes on for. We, meanwhile, are giving up our time and
10 lives to fighting this case, and the longer it goes on the
11 longer it will be before we get our lives back, the longer
12 we will be under the pressures and stresses and strains of
13 fighting this litigation.
14
15 Can I also point out that the fact we are in the middle of
16 the trial means that if the amendments are allowed and we
17 do need to go back to our witnesses to clarify things or to
18 ask further questions or to prepare further statements or
19 get more witnesses, we are not going to have the time to do
20 that at the same time as having to be in court every day.
21 So we are going to be in an impossible position, unless
22 there was some kind of adjournment -- which, again, would
23 prolong the trial and prolong the length of time it is
24 going to be before we are out of all this pressure.
25
26 As we state in paragraph 3 of the skeleton argument,
27 although the trial itself has not reached its conclusion
28 and still has a very considerable distance to go, the issue
29 of nutrition has all but reached its end.
30
31 I will not go through the whole of paragraph 4, because
32 I think we have more or less dealt with that, but just to
33 reiterate that we do not consider that the passage in the
34 leaflet is capable of bearing the proposed amended meaning
35 and, therefore, it ought not to be allowed as an amendment.
36
37 Paragraph 5. It is clear to us that the Plaintiffs did not
38 consider that it bore the meanings they set out in the
39 proposed amendments, because when they first pleaded their
40 case they did not put in the word "causal". When they
41 asked for further and better particulars of our case, they
42 did not ask us whether we meant "causal".
43
44 The pleadings specifically refer there to -- our pleadings,
45 that is -- epidemiological studies showing an association
46 and correlative studies showing an association. So if the
47 Plaintiffs really did think that the passage in the leaflet
48 meant causal connection, but we were only seeking to
49 justify a mere association, they could have asked us what
50 we are saying. Instead, they asked whether, in fact, there
51 was an association.
52
53 Going on to the Notice of Admission, where the Plaintiffs
54 admitted that there is a considerable amount of evidence of
55 a relationship between a diet high in saturated fat and
56 sodium and obesity, high blood pressure and heart disease,
57 Mr. Rampton is now asserting that all along that meant a
58 causal relationship. We do not accept that. We think that
59 is not what they meant all along. Basically, their backs
60 are against the wall, and they have no option but to say
