Day 070 - 20 Dec 94 - Page 37


     
     1        have a witness and because I have said on previous
     2        occasions that I do not require the allegation to be
     3        pleaded, I regard what Ms. Hovey says in her witness
     4        statement as a pleading.  There will be proper evidence and
     5        discovery to deal with the allegations which she makes in
     6        her witness statement.  But that is the way it works.
     7
     8        What is not permissible is for the Defendants, by pulling
     9        some kind of lever, a hopeful, optimistic lever, that they
    10        should then expect a whole lot of goodies to spill out of
    11        the cupboard.  That is not the way the system works.  With
    12        respect, this is a misconceived application.
    13
    14   MR. MORRIS:  I do not think Mr. Rampton appreciates what I see
    15        as the law in this area.  First of all, in the
    16        Counterclaim, they chose to defend the Counterclaim, which
    17        they did not have to, and one the reasons they defended the
    18        Counterclaim was on the grounds that we knew the material
    19        was lies because of the Plaintiffs' conduct of the case,
    20        the pleadings, the matters, the issues that have been
    21        brought up.
    22
    23        Some of their witnesses have brought in statements about
    24        conditions in slaughterhouses, how they check them, what
    25        their policies are; and they chose to do that.  However,
    26        when we questioned them, asking for the names of the
    27        slaughterhouses in this country, they refused to give the
    28        names, which means -- well, so for a start, under the
    29        Counterclaim, we are entitled to discovery on any of the
    30        matters in the main case which the Plaintiffs are relying
    31        on as evidence that we know that our claims are all lies.
    32
    33        So, in any event, we are entitled to discovery.  But,
    34        secondly, in terms of evidence which we are entitled to
    35        bring, which includes cross-examination of their witnesses,
    36        evidence has been given in court about slaughterhouses.
    37        The Plaintiffs could have said:  "Well, what happens in the
    38        slaughterhouses is absolutely nothing to do with us.  We do
    39        not care about the conditions of the animals.  It does not
    40        worry us.  We are not going to bring any evidence or ask
    41        questions on it and argue with yourself on that matter."
    42        But they have not; they have relied on the fact they have
    43        policies and audits, and whatever.
    44
    45        Indeed, they have even called an expert witness who visited
    46        a slaughterhouse, although of course we do not know the
    47        name of the slaughterhouse that he visited.
    48
    49        So, it is a completely biased situation where the
    50        Plaintiffs can make all kinds of claims that we cannot 
    51        substantiate, that we cannot test or substantiate. 
    52 
    53   MR. RAMPTON:  My Lord, that is completely untrue.  The identity
    54        of the slaughterhouses which were visited by Dr. Gregory
    55        are very well known to the Defendants.  I do not mind
    56        revealing what they are, if the Defendants have missed
    57        them, because the witnesses from those slaughterhouses are
    58        coming to give evidence in court, who met Dr. Gregory.
    59        There is Sun Valley, Bowsons in Norfolk, and Midland Meat
    60        Packers in Milton Keynes -----

Prev Next Index