Day 149 - 06 Jul 95 - Page 46
1 mid-1980s. So that cannot be.
2
3 I think that you ruled that the application was,
4 effectively, an informal interrogatory, or could be treated
5 as one, in that if they did not have an existing list, if
6 they were able to make one without being put to an
7 unnecessary massive paper chase through general files and
8 picking out individual letters, but if the Company
9 Corporate, whatever, had that information -- which
10 I believe it must do, and certainly it would be within the
11 knowledge of the Company to provide some kind of list --
12 then I think, as it is such an important part of the case,
13 that I do not believe they have fulfilled the ruling that
14 you have already made by giving us the list from 1995.
15
16 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Have you made any approach yet to your
17 American witness about the information you have got?
18
19 MR. MORRIS: We are waiting for a list of suppliers from earlier
20 than 1989. There is not much point. They only had a small
21 number of burger producing suppliers. Effectively, it is
22 something like five or six companies, some of them with new
23 names, from about 1989 onwards, as far we know from what
24 has been disclosed and said; and that cannot possibly
25 compare to the 175 (or whatever it was) in the early to
26 mid-1980s and before.
27
28 I do not see how a witness can really do all that checking
29 up. They would have actually no idea, without having more
30 information. I think it is a very, very important part of
31 the case; and, certainly on this one, even if it involves a
32 little bit of work for the Corporation, that is something
33 they should have to do as they decided to bring the case.
34
35 Also, I think that this is a very important one to swear an
36 affidavit on. If they are saying that the World Wildlife
37 Fund's list of suppliers was a complete surprise, then that
38 would conflict diametrically with the evidence of
39 Robert Beavers. So I think they should swear an affidavit
40 on this matter, if not all the matters.
41
42 Mr. Rampton did misrepresent our case. He said that our
43 case was McDonald's had imported beef. Our case is that
44 McDonald's have used beef which has been imported into the
45 United States.
46
47 MS. STEEL: Going on to the observation checklists,
48 Mr. Rampton's objection seemed to be that he does not like
49 producing documents which are looked at once and then
50 discarded. If that is the problem, then if I could make a
51 suggestion which is that these are standard printed forms
52 in the McOpco stores, probably in franchised stores as
53 well; they are ready printed, and they are used for each
54 employee at each store. So there must be several copies of
55 them -- hundreds and thousands of copies of them, in fact.
56
57 If they would just get one set of OCLs sent over, then we
58 can look through them, and if there are any that we want to
59 raise in evidence, then we can get copies made of those and
60 return the originals. I think they are relevant to the
