Day 083 - 06 Feb 95 - Page 06


     
     1        Plaintiffs' claim on food poisoning should be struck out
     2        because it is not specifically about McDonald's, or we
     3        should be allowed to meet it in whatever way we see fit
     4        which, obviously, includes BSE.
     5
     6   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Is there anything you want to add?
     7
     8   MR. MORRIS:  Yes.  I agree with everything Helen has said.  It
     9        is just to emphasise the point that Mr. Rampton has
    10        accepted our right to call evidence on other matters that
    11        are not specifically mentioned by name in the fact sheet;
    12        secondly, this has been, as we have said, mentioned in two
    13        statements served, including one served two years ago, in
    14        terms of being, one, with Alan Long as regards being a
    15        cattle disease of relevance and, secondly, with Marla Lisa
    16        Hovey's statement being something that is recognised as a
    17        risk for humans.  She deals with the European
    18        specifications to the steps that the EEC have taken to
    19        respond to the risk.  Obviously, we are saying that should
    20        apply to the UK as well in that there should be steps taken
    21        to respond to the risk in the UK.  That is all I have to
    22        say.
    23
    24   MR. RAMPTON:  My Lord, can I, first of all, deal with that?  The
    25        fact that Ms. Hovey makes reference to what might or might
    26        not happen within the EC is quite apparent from her
    27        statement.  That has nothing whatever to do with
    28        McDonald's.  The fact that Mr. Long mentions it does not
    29        make it relevant.  In any event, he is not an expert in the
    30        subject, Dr. Dealer is.
    31
    32        My Lord, may I first of all slay the chimaera that
    33        Ms. Steel has created to the effect that I first raised
    34        this question of BSE with Dr. Gomez Gonzalez; of course,
    35        that is not so.  It was first raised, at any rate so far as
    36        transcripts are concerned, by Mr. Morris in
    37        cross-examination of Mr. Preston on Day 4, 1st July 1994,
    38        on page 29 at lines 1 to 38 towards the end of which
    39        I objected and said that I thought that if the Defendants
    40        were going to ask questions about BSE, they had better put
    41        their heads together and produce an amendment to the
    42        Defence.
    43
    44        Mr. Morris then came back to the question in the
    45        cross-examination of Mr. Oakley, also before Dr. Gomez
    46        Gonzalez was called to give evidence on Day 61,
    47        5th December 1994, page 70, lines 42 to 48.  So, your
    48        Lordship will see why I thought it advisable to ask
    49        Dr. Gomez Gonzales a question about it, the Defendants,
    50        despite my urging back in July, not having produced any 
    51        amendment, not having in their hand when they 
    52        cross-examined Mr. Oakley the statement of Dr. Dealer. 
    53
    54        My Lord, may I just say a short word?  I want to try to
    55        avoid so far as I can repeating anything I said when
    56        I opened my submission.
    57
    58   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I think you take your own course, but I would
    59        like help on any analogy with diabetes and CFCs and whether
    60        the topic, regardless of your second point, can be brought

Prev Next Index