Day 053 - 22 Nov 94 - Page 27


     
     1
     2        Secondly, there is a much greater cost to us.  Mr. Rampton
     3        and his team are here because it is their job to be here --
     4        unless of course Mr. Rampton wants to tell us he is doing
     5        the case for McDonald's for free -- and if Mr. Rampton and
     6        his legal team were not in this court, were not being paid
     7        to be in this court, they would just be in another court.
     8        So it makes little difference to them how long this case
     9        goes on for.  We, meanwhile, are giving up our time and
    10        lives to fighting this case, and the longer it goes on the
    11        longer it will be before we get our lives back, the longer
    12        we will be under the pressures and stresses and strains of
    13        fighting this litigation.
    14
    15        Can I also point out that the fact we are in the middle of
    16        the trial means that if the amendments are allowed and we
    17        do need to go back to our witnesses to clarify things or to
    18        ask further questions or to prepare further statements or
    19        get more witnesses, we are not going to have the time to do
    20        that at the same time as having to be in court every day.
    21        So we are going to be in an impossible position, unless
    22        there was some kind of adjournment -- which, again, would
    23        prolong the trial and prolong the length of time it is
    24        going to be before we are out of all this pressure.
    25
    26        As we state in paragraph 3 of the skeleton argument,
    27        although the trial itself has not reached its conclusion
    28        and still has a very considerable distance to go, the issue
    29        of nutrition has all but reached its end.
    30
    31        I will not go through the whole of paragraph 4, because
    32        I think we have more or less dealt with that, but just to
    33        reiterate that we do not consider that the passage in the
    34        leaflet is capable of bearing the proposed amended meaning
    35        and, therefore, it ought not to be allowed as an amendment.
    36
    37        Paragraph 5.  It is clear to us that the Plaintiffs did not
    38        consider that it bore the meanings they set out in the
    39        proposed amendments, because when they first pleaded their
    40        case they did not put in the word "causal".  When they
    41        asked for further and better particulars of our case, they
    42        did not ask us whether we meant "causal".
    43
    44        The pleadings specifically refer there to -- our pleadings,
    45        that is -- epidemiological studies showing an association
    46        and correlative studies showing an association.  So if the
    47        Plaintiffs really did think that the passage in the leaflet
    48        meant causal connection, but we were only seeking to
    49        justify a mere association, they could have asked us what
    50        we are saying.  Instead, they asked whether, in fact, there 
    51        was an association. 
    52 
    53        Going on to the Notice of Admission, where the Plaintiffs
    54        admitted that there is a considerable amount of evidence of
    55        a relationship between a diet high in saturated fat and
    56        sodium and obesity, high blood pressure and heart disease,
    57        Mr. Rampton is now asserting that all along that meant a
    58        causal relationship.  We do not accept that.  We think that
    59        is not what they meant all along.  Basically, their backs
    60        are against the wall, and they have no option but to say

Prev Next Index