Day 087 - 10 Feb 95 - Page 41
1 jeopardy for any sum of money, whether it be costs of
2 damages at the end of this case, such a venturesome frolic
3 of a pleading bearing no relation to what is in the leaflet
4 so far as McDonald's responsibility of the destruction of
5 the rainforest is concerned, could never be made unless
6 they were willing to pay literally hundreds of thousands of
7 pounds in damages and costs, given the burden which such a
8 pleading would cast on the Plaintiffs and to no purpose in
9 the ultimate result. But I reserve that, though I have
10 said it once. I will come back to it in a good deal more
11 detail, perhaps, later on when a proposed pleading is
12 tendered.
13
14 MR. MORRIS: When we served our pleading, as most of it is based
15 upon admissions by the Plaintiffs already, then it will not
16 cost anything because the Plaintiffs, presumably, will
17 admit it all.
18
19 MR. JUSTICE BELL: We have not got to that because I have not
20 got your proposed pleading yet. There is clearly a
21 misunderstanding between myself and Mr. Rampton as to what
22 I thought you were focusing on. I am not saying what my
23 view of the merit of it would be. I am just trying to
24 explain what I understood the target of your putative
25 application to amend would be.
26
27 MR. MORRIS: Obviously we should plead Brazil. The food
28 poisoning matters, I think they were the main things that
29 we were -- it was suggested that we might wish to seek
30 leave to amend. I think it would be very helpful if we had
31 a list of what was thought to be the outstanding matters
32 that are up in the air at the moment because, to be honest,
33 we are losing track of them and where they are. Maybe we
34 could clear up one or two loose ends that could be dealt
35 with and then leave it there for today.
36
37 MR. RAMPTON: No, my Lord. I would like, if I may, to give your
38 Lordship the notes of what I see as being the outstanding
39 matters. I have not put down Brazil because until I get an
40 amendment, until your Lordship gets a proposed amendment,
41 I do not regard that as being outstanding. I regard that
42 as defunct.
43
44 The things I have outstanding are -- and these are all,
45 I think, discovery matters -- not all, no: The first is
46 whether any discovery should be made in relation to Oregon
47 in 1982 or Silver Spring in 1987. That is something I do
48 wish to be heard on. The second is discovery in relation
49 to the further increase of cooking times after Preston,
50 which was referred to on page 5 of
51 Mr. Wignall's/Mr. Atherton's statement. It may be that
52 that has now disappeared in view of what Mr. Atherton said
53 and the documents which we have seen, but we will come back
54 to that.
55
56 The next item is the Defendants want discovery of the
57 documents seen by Professor Jackson when he went to McKey's
58 and Sun Valley and by Mr. Clark when he went to McDonald's
59 restaurants in the Glasgow area. My Lord, I will have a
60 good deal to say about that.
