Day 083 - 06 Feb 95 - Page 56


     
     1        I do not know what the file was called.  There was a file
     2        with about 20 documents in it from the Defendants.  One of
     3        them was page 13 of that file.  Maybe it is enough just to
     4        ----
     5
     6   MS. STEEL:  It was the list served on 18th January.
     7
     8   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Which number was it?
     9
    10   MR. MORRIS:  Page 13.
    11
    12   MS. STEEL:  It is page 13 of No. 2.
    13
    14   MR. MORRIS:  Just the documents relevant to that incident and
    15        investigation.
    16
    17   MR. RAMPTON:  No, my Lord.  Once again this newspaper article,
    18        for that it be, the Mail on Sunday of 13th November 1994,
    19        is susceptible of (I have just read it for the first time)
    20        a number of different allegations, some of which might be
    21        thought to defamatory of McDonald's, others of which might
    22        not.  This is a case, with respect, in which before
    23        discovery should be forthcoming we should be told what is
    24        the allegation that the Defendants make on the basis of
    25        this newspaper article.  Thanks, and I say without any
    26        sincerity, to the Court of Appeal I cannot stop them
    27        raising a pleading on the basis of this newspaper article,
    28        but I need to know what the pleading is going to say.
    29
    30   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Is it any different situation to Preston?
    31
    32   MR. RAMPTON:  I do not know.  It is not, on the face of it, a
    33        case of food poisoning at all.  One does not even know
    34        whether if the child had eaten the piece of chicken she
    35        might have been poisoned.  It might well be that her
    36        natural immunity or the quantity was so great or the
    37        quantity of salmonella was so small, that there was no
    38        risk.  One simply does not know.  Unless and until the
    39        Defendants tell us what part of their justification this
    40        constitutes, we ought not to have, with respect, to make
    41        any discovery.  If it is properly pleaded and it accords
    42        with the facts, then we may well admit it of course, but we
    43        will have to wait and see.  If they stretch the material in
    44        the way they sometimes do, then we shall not admit it and
    45        then there will be discovery.
    46
    47   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  You may or may not be right about that, but
    48        how is it actually any different to the allegations of food
    49        poisoning which no challenge has been made to in tab 5?
    50        I appreciate it does not say that the three-year old girl 
    51        in question actually suffered food poisoning, but what the 
    52        allegation is, is that she started to eat something in 
    53        which salmonella was found.
    54
    55   MR. RAMPTON:  That is fine.  If it is simply an allegation that
    56        in its literal meaning this article is true, then I do not
    57        have a problem because it leads to no inference.  All it
    58        says is that there was an uncooked piece of chicken with
    59        some salmonella.  One cannot speculate whether it was a
    60        dangerous amount of salmonella or anything else.  One

Prev Next Index