Day 053 - 22 Nov 94 - Page 25


     
     1        I find that hard to believe.  Someone of Mr. Rampton's
     2        experience, when he took over this case from Mr. Shields,
     3        must have read the pleadings; and if he considers that they
     4        are badly pleaded now, then he must have realised it then.
     5
     6        The fact is that they are only concerned to change their
     7        pleadings because we have proved what was initially pleaded
     8        by them in the Statement of Claim.
     9
    10        If Mr. Rampton thinks it has clearly been his case that it
    11        was "cause" since he took over in July last year, why did
    12        he not apply to amend then?
    13
    14   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Whatever else you may say, do you want me to
    15        take the skeleton argument as part of your oral argument?
    16
    17   MS. STEEL:  Yes, please.  I was going to go through parts of it.
    18
    19   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Save in so far as you may say -- and I have
    20        not checked whether you have -- anything positively
    21        different.
    22
    23   MS. STEEL:  I do not think I have said anything different.
    24
    25        Maybe if we turn to the skeleton argument.  As we say in
    26        paragraph 1, this is a very late application, four years
    27        after the writ was issued and even several months after the
    28        beginning of the trial.
    29
    30        As I just referred to, in my opening speech, it was clear
    31        that we thought that the issue was "link", if Mr. Rampton
    32        thought it was something different at that stage, then he
    33        should have applied to amend his case at that point, or
    34        made his application for us to amend our meaning at that
    35        point.  He should not have left it until this late stage,
    36        when all the Plaintiffs' witnesses on nutrition have
    37        already been called and given evidence, and ours have been
    38        called, as well, and were not prepared on the basis of just
    39        being causal link.
    40
    41        We have been into this already, but we do reiterate that
    42        the amendments that are proposed do fundamentally alter the
    43        nature and basis of the Plaintiffs' case and of what would
    44        be the issues in the action.
    45
    46        As it says, there have not been any recent developments
    47        which should lead to a need to amend, other than the fact
    48        that the Plaintiffs' witnesses have agreed with our
    49        contentions on the links between diet and disease.
    50 
    51        On the following page, with reference to Ketteman v. Hansel 
    52        Properties [1987] 1 AC 189, talking about allowing an 
    53        amendment to clarify the issues in dispute, clearly, we are
    54        saying that this is not an amendment to clarify the issues
    55        in dispute; this is an amendment to fundamentally change
    56        the nature of the Plaintiffs' case and, for that reason, it
    57        should not be allowed at this late stage.
    58
    59        Going on to the second paragraph, Lord Griffiths is
    60        quoted:

Prev Next Index