Day 087 - 10 Feb 95 - Page 38


     
     1        used from a rainforest country, put very generally, it puts
     2        pressure on rainforest land.  Whatever might be said about
     3        that, it is not at the moment related to Brazil.  The first
     4        step is for the Defendants to think of an amendment and
     5        then we can have an argument, if there must be an argument,
     6        as to whether they should have leave to include it.
     7
     8   MR. RAMPTON:  My Lord, yes.  I think I said this last week or
     9        may be it was earlier this week -- my recent chronology is
    10        rather confused -- before ever that happened, it is very
    11        likely that there would be, as I think I said, a request
    12        for further and better particulars.  What happened, as your
    13        Lordship remembers, on the previous occasion was that by
    14        constant pressure for particulars, the Defendants were
    15        constrained to accept and state expressly that their
    16        rainforest case was confined to Costa Rica and Guatemala in
    17        certain years.
    18
    19        I myself will not accept -- I cannot govern what your
    20        Lordship will accept, of course -- some woolly plea about
    21        the use of beef by McDonald's Brazilian restaurants over a
    22        period of time exerting pressure in some indirect way and
    23        speculative way upon some people in some areas of Brazil to
    24        chop down rainforest trees.
    25
    26        I shall require, by giving the Defendants notice, so far as
    27        this case is concerned, precise details of how it is that
    28        the beef taken by McDonald's restaurants in Brazil has had
    29        that effect and where precisely in Brazil it is alleged to
    30        have happened:  Quantities, numbers, years, geographical
    31        areas.
    32
    33   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  If we look at the pleading in tab 1, at the
    34        bottom of page 2 there is an allegation that "meat from
    35        cattle ranches in Central and Latin America, including some
    36        using ex-rainforest land"; so it is not just from cattle
    37        ranches including ex-rainforest land; "... has been
    38        supplied to restaurants operated or franchised by the First
    39        Plaintiff and/or its subsidiaries.  In this way McDonald's
    40        bear some", that is my emphasis, "responsibility for and/or
    41        have contributed to the destruction of rainforest in
    42        Central and Latin America.  By whatever means, that
    43        destruction has been carried out".
    44
    45        That has not been struck out.  Just to take an example of a
    46        particular, which again is here:  "In 1975 Industria de
    47        Ganaderos Gualtemaltecos began supplying McDonald's
    48        Guatemala".  So we have a case pleaded at the moment which
    49        includes the allegation that McDonald's bear some
    50        responsibility for and/or have contributed to the 
    51        destruction of rainforest by taking meat from cattle 
    52        ranches in Guatemala; some, but not all, of which are on 
    53        ex-rainforest land for supplying McDonald's Guatemala.  No
    54        application has been made to strike that out.  So I am
    55        assuming that that is a valid allegation at the moment.
    56
    57        What I understand the Defendants wish to do is in respect
    58        of beef supplied to McDonald's in Brazil plead a similar
    59        allegation.
    60

Prev Next Index