Day 083 - 06 Feb 95 - Page 22


     
     1        document in respect of which an issue arises.
     2
     3        The decision of principle would then be applied by your
     4        clients in any future list which they gave of documents in
     5        their possession, control or power.  An awful lot of
     6        documents one might really have no information about.  For
     7        instance, it is something which I may need your help on and
     8        may wish to hear Ms. Steel and Mr. Morris on, but I do not
     9        mind saying I have been reconsidering what I said on
    10        20th December in relation to documentation about supply of
    11        any beef from Brazil to the First and Second Plaintiffs,
    12        and I may need some help on that later.  But if directed
    13        your clients, having heard argument, to make a list of any
    14        documentation which they had in relation to the supply of
    15        any beef, quite apart from the 80 tonnes which they had
    16        received from Brazil, I mean, it might be dead easy because
    17        the answer might be there never was any and there are no
    18        documentations anyway, but if I ever made such a direction
    19        it would be for your clients to apply any test which I set
    20        out in deciding whether they had or ever had had any such
    21        document in their power and then, if the Defendants in any
    22        way doubted that, it would be for them to say:  "Well,
    23        look, they must have or must have had this, that or the
    24        other and by your test it must have been or must be in the
    25        First or Second Plaintiffs' power".
    26
    27        I am just trying to see what the practicalities are.
    28        I understand the position that one can, for instance, make
    29        a ruling on audits, for instance -- abattoir audits and
    30        things of that kind -- because one has a certain amount of
    31        information about them.  But have I analysed the situation
    32        correctly with regard to documents which at this stage one
    33        does not know exist and where one knows nothing at all
    34        about what the contractual relationship are?
    35
    36   MR. RAMPTON:  My Lord, the Brazil example -- I leave aside
    37        entirely the question of whether the Defendants are
    38        entitled  ---
    39
    40   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes, leave that on one side.
    41
    42   MR. RAMPTON:  -- given as your Lordship has earlier said, there
    43        really has not been any foundation for making any
    44        allegation about Brazil whatsoever -- that is quite a good
    45        example.  I cannot remember precisely what the relative
    46        shareholdings were in McKey in 1983.  My belief is  -----
    47
    48   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  McDonald's were the majority shareholders.
    49        Certainly Mr. David Walker was a minority shareholder.
    50 
    51   MR. RAMPTON:  They were the majority shareholder. 
    52 
    53   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I think Keystone had a shareholding but he
    54        said McDonald's always had at least 51 per cent, did he
    55        not?
    56
    57   MR. RAMPTON:  Assume for the sake of argument that McDonald's
    58        had 51 per cent in 1983, therefore, McKey was a controlled
    59        subsidiary, I think probably of the corporation, not of the
    60        English company -- for the purpose of argument, that does

Prev Next Index