Day 107 - 24 Mar 95 - Page 18


     
     1        food.
     2
     3        (2)  If the answer to either of the requests above is in
     4        the affirmative, each and every fact and matter relied upon
     5        to support the said allegation.
     6
     7        (3)  If the answer to the said request in (1) above is in
     8        the negative, the precise nature of the case which is being
     9        made against the Plaintiffs with the full particulars of
    10        those facts and matters relied upon to support it".
    11
    12        The answer is:  "The Defendants' case is that since the
    13        Plaintiffs sell enormous quantities of meat worldwide,
    14        particularly chicken and minced beef, there is a risk that
    15        their customers could suffer food poisoning.
    16
    17        Secondly, the Plaintiffs sell enormous quantities of meat
    18        worldwide, particularly chicken and minced beef, and were
    19        responsible for an outbreak of food poisoning in Preston in
    20        early 1991".
    21
    22        It is clear from that that the context is that the Preston
    23        incident is being used to support the wider pleading about
    24        meat being responsible for the majority of cases of food
    25        poisoning, and the general risk, therefore, about eating
    26        meat at the Plaintiffs' premises.  It is not that the
    27        Preston incident is some separate compartment that is not
    28        at all relevant to the general pleadings.  It is clearly
    29        part of it.
    30
    31   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes, but if that is the extent of it, you
    32        have so far pleaded and had admitted what you need from
    33        Preston as to that.  That is the end of the trail, as I am
    34        minded to think at the moment, because of the authorities
    35        which Mr. Rampton ran through quickly a few weeks ago.
    36
    37        What my concern is, that in addition to certain numbers of
    38        people in or around Preston suffering food poisoning as a
    39        result of food being under-cooked at McDonald's, which is a
    40        summary of what is alleged at the moment and what is
    41        admitted by McDonald's, so there is no need to hear any
    42        more evidence to establish it, you have other things in the
    43        PHLS report which are specific facts as to the way this
    44        came about which you want to adduce in evidence, if indeed
    45        they are not admitted, so that you can ask someone like
    46        Mr. North:  "What do you make of that?"
    47
    48        Although there has been some laxity about pleading matters
    49        of fact upon which you want to rely for your Plea of
    50        Justification and Fair Comment, when it comes to Preston 
    51        the point has been taken by Mr. Rampton, rightly, in my 
    52        view, that the precise facts you wish to rely upon should 
    53        be specifically pleaded.
    54
    55        So, I gave you an opportunity to apply for an amendment and
    56        when you made it, I granted it, I granted you leave.  In
    57        fact, Mr. Rampton did not actually object to it; he
    58        objected at first but that was purely because of a
    59        misunderstanding as to what was being alleged where.
    60

Prev Next Index