Day 087 - 10 Feb 95 - Page 39
1 MR. RAMPTON: I agree, but it would have to be -- this is a
2 matter for the future, of course -- the amount of detail
3 with which your Lordship might be satisfied is in the
4 future. All I am saying is that unless and until there is
5 a plea relating to particular places in Brazil, particular
6 years, particular areas of the country and particular
7 quantities, as in due course the Defendants were compelled
8 to give in relation to Guatemala and Costa Rica, I will not
9 be satisfied. Your Lordship may be, and I will have lost
10 that argument so far as it goes.
11
12 MR. JUSTICE BELL: They were not compelled to give that
13 information.
14
15 MR. RAMPTON: They were, by order of Master Grant in November
16 1991.
17
18 MR. JUSTICE BELL: But they have not given it.
19
20 MR. RAMPTON: My Lord, they have given it as best they can.
21
22 MR. JUSTICE BELL: That may be.
23
24 MR. RAMPTON: My Lord, they have.
25
26 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Where?
27
28 MR. RAMPTON: Yes, they have. Starting at page 3. I have not
29 got, unfortunately, the full file with all the requests in
30 it, but the development or the refinement or, what I call,
31 the compaction of this plea by pressure of request for
32 particulars took place over a period of time. Page 3 is
33 the first attempt. Page ten is the next attempt and page
34 11. Both those attempts were rejected by the court.
35
36 MR. JUSTICE BELL: So far we have not gone any further than what
37 was in the original particulars on page 3.
38
39 MR. RAMPTON: No, but on page 12 we do; at the bottom of page 11
40 and page 12 we do. Then finally, in relation to Costa
41 Rica -----
42
43 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Do we have an equivalent for Guatemala?
44
45 MR. RAMPTON: No. The rest reference to Guatemala is, I think,
46 page 12, though that is less of a problem because the years
47 have been specified earlier on, I believe.
48
49 MR. JUSTICE BELL: It is quite true the years, but the main
50 point I am getting at now is they have not pleaded in
51 relation to Guatemala, and yet Guatemala is still in --
52 where in Guatemala the beef came from. They have not been
53 put to the sword on that, and an application has not been
54 made to strike them out on the basis that they are relying
55 not only in relation to Guatemala on ex-rainforest land but
56 other land by their indirect route. Now, if I am wrong
57 about that point it out.
58
59 I agree there is more in relation to Costa Rica, but even
60 then it is support for their indirect link argument. It
