Day 083 - 06 Feb 95 - Page 31


     
     1        the Lonrho case.
     2
     3   MS. STEEL:   Right.  My concern is that, as we have seen from
     4        the documents ------
     5
     6   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  There may be cases where that is so, for
     7        instance, the man who can be identified with this company
     8        because he owns 99 of 100 shares and his wife owns one, but
     9        that is not the situation here.  That is Mr. Rampton's
    10        argument.
    11
    12   MS. STEEL:  Yes.  My concern is that when it suits them the
    13        Plaintiffs say that it is their company.  For example, when
    14        they wanted to import the Brazilian beef, they wrote to the
    15        MAFF or Customs & Excise saying that, for all intents and
    16        purposes, it is the same company, and that is why
    17        Mr. Walker wrote on McDonald's headed notepaper.  But when
    18        they want to avoid their obligations of giving discovery,
    19        they then say:  "Oh, no, it is an entirely separate
    20        company".
    21
    22        This flexibility can be used by McDonald's to avoid their
    23        responsibilities.  Mr. Walker also said that Keystone were
    24        told to sell their shares in McKey's.  They were told by
    25        McDonald's.  What would be the case of documents that were
    26        owned by McKey's at the time of the alleged libel and so,
    27        effectively, only by McDonald's, but because they decide to
    28        sell their shares in the company before they actually bring
    29        the libel case, they can avoid their obligations?  I mean,
    30        it seems to me that it is complete manipulation of the law,
    31        really.
    32
    33        To me, it is clear that they have got this relationship
    34        with their suppliers where they do expect from their
    35        suppliers to be provided with documents as and when they
    36        want them, and that if the suppliers do not comply they
    37        will terminate contracts, and that McDonald's are currently
    38        just trying to escape from having to disclose documents by
    39        trying to pretend that they have not got that kind of power
    40        over their suppliers.  The reality is that it is there in
    41        the specifications, they have got the power.
    42
    43   MR. MORRIS:  Can I just say one thing on the specifications?  It
    44        does appear that the actual content of the specifications
    45        does not change, whether it applies, for example, to
    46        McKey's, it has not changed because of the different status
    47        of McKey's at various times, whether it is owned by
    48        Mr. Walker or whether it is owned by McDonald's or some
    49        combination, the specifications remain the same.
    50 
    51   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Is there anything more you want to say on 
    52        that because if there is not we will break off now and come 
    53        back at 2 o'clock.
    54
    55   MR. RAMPTON:  I do not know if I am strictly entitled to do so
    56        but it might help.  I am not encouraging the Defendants to
    57        think again, but it is important, in my submission, they
    58        understand what it is that I am submitting -- I know your
    59        Lordship does -- in relation to these specifications,
    60        whether they be called contractual or not.  What they

Prev Next Index