Day 053 - 22 Nov 94 - Page 29
1 it would be that the Plaintiffs thought they were admitting
2 causal association between a diet of a certain kind and
3 heart disease, because Professor Crawford had, as you point
4 out in your skeleton, in July, in his statement, stated
5 that cardiovascular disease is closely and causally related
6 to a diet high in saturated fat. The Plaintiffs have made
7 an admission. There was no need, therefore, to call
8 Professor Crawford to give that evidence. I appreciate
9 that is not the construction you put on it, but that might
10 be what was going on, if we had had an argument as to
11 whether, for instance, Professor Crawford (the most obvious
12 example). I remember I did say something, and we never got
13 to argue about it, that the admission could not eliminate
14 Professor Crawford altogether, whatever it meant, because
15 Professor Crawford dealt with cancer as well as heart
16 disease. He had something to say about that. But if there
17 had been an argument that it was a waste of time for him to
18 adduce any evidence on heart disease, I hope it is not with
19 the wisdom of hindsight when I say I would probably have
20 said, "Well, that is so if what you are admitting is a
21 causal association or relationship" -- I forget which of
22 the two nouns is used in the admission -- "but not if you
23 are just seeking to admit something more remote than
24 that." But there we are. I understand your argument.
25
26 MR. MORRIS: I would add my own comment that Mr. Rampton is
27 trying to rewrite history with the benefit of hindsight as
28 to what he is now saying they meant all along. That is our
29 position.
30
31 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Is there anything more you wanted to say
32 about paragraph 6 or on the topic there? Let us break off
33 now, anyway. It is one o'clock. We will come back at two.
34
35 (Luncheon adjournment)
36
37 2.00 p.m.
38
39 MS. STEEL: I was going through the skeleton argument, and then
40 we got to the section about the admission on heart
41 disease. In view of the Plaintiffs' admission yesterday of
42 a causal association between heart disease and diet, I do
43 not know whether there is a need to go into all the other
44 points.
45
46 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Let me read 7 again. Yes?
47
48 MS. STEEL: We still want what is in the skeleton argument to
49 stand, because we do not actually accept that their
50 admission was always intended to be an admission of a
51 causal relationship. But the fact that they have now
52 admitted that does mean, perhaps, that it is not worth
53 going through the section specifically on heart disease.
54
55 MR. JUSTICE BELL: No. I will include it as part of your
56 submissions, in any event.
57
58 MS. STEEL: Going on to point 9, we do feel very strongly that
59 the Plaintiffs are being misleading in trying to claim that
60 the proposed amendments simply reflect the way they have
