Day 053 - 22 Nov 94 - Page 46


     
     1        were concerned, it was what was pleaded and it was just any
     2        form of link; also that it was the nutritional content as
     3        opposed to the specific meals.  So, perhaps if you could
     4        just bear that in mind, that basically anywhere where
     5        Mr. Rampton has asserted that we were aware of what they
     6        are trying to amend their case to now from the word go, we
     7        both totally and utterly dispute.  If you could bear that
     8        in mind; that saves me going through -----
     9
    10   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I will.  What I have to do is look at the
    11        whole of what is before me.  I will bear in mind what you
    12        said, that you did not understand that, but then I have to
    13        look at what is said.  Maybe I will accept what you say,
    14        maybe I will not, and I have to look and see whether
    15        I think it has made any difference to the conduct of the
    16        case so far.
    17
    18        If you think there are parts of the transcript which you
    19        actually have in mind now which, by the same token, as
    20        Mr. Rampton says, because you asked this question, he would
    21        ask me to conclude that you did realise "cause" was an
    22        issue, that there is some quote there which makes it clear,
    23        or might indicate, that you did not realise "cause" was an
    24        issue, then direct me to it, either just by giving me the
    25        references which I will read through as I read through this
    26        morning the list of references to Dr. Arnott's
    27        evidence-in-chief and cross-examination.
    28
    29        I take the point that you think whether there is any kind
    30        of link is an issue, but that does not mean to say that you
    31        did not appreciate that "cause" was in the arena as well.
    32        So, if there is a particular reference somewhere which you
    33        say makes it clear that, "not only did we think non-causal
    34        link was an issue, we positively did not think that causal
    35        link was an issue", then direct me to it.
    36
    37   MS. STEEL:  I think you are misunderstanding what our position
    38        is.  It is not our position that "cause" was not in the
    39        arena; what the difference is is that if the issue was
    40        "link" (which we contend that it was) when a witness had
    41        admitted a link, we did not need to go any further; whereas
    42        if the issue was "cause" but the witness admitted a link,
    43        we would have gone a lot further in cross-examining them as
    44        to what they meant by "link", and just drawing out as much
    45        evidence as possible on what they thought about "cause".
    46        So, it is not that "cause" was not any part of it; it is
    47        just that we did not go as far as we would have done
    48        had "cause" been the issue.
    49
    50   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I think we are beginning to go back over old 
    51        ground. 
    52 
    53   MS. STEEL:   The problem is that, I mean, with respect, it seems
    54        obvious to us, but from what you say it does not appear as
    55        though you are accepting .....
    56
    57   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I am going to go away and think about it.
    58        I do not accept things just because you say them any more
    59        than I accept things just because Mr. Rampton says them.
    60        I go away and think about all the factors which I think may

Prev Next Index