Day 200 - 12 Dec 95 - Page 24


     
     1        admit on the Plaintiffs about the very real risk from a
     2        diet high in fat?  If they do not respond to that, we
     3        should then get witness statements on this subject and call
     4        evidence on that?
     5
     6   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I am sorry.  I do not really think I can
     7        advise you on that.  You must take whichever course you
     8        want, but I think you have to grapple with the very real
     9        possibility that if you do serve a notice to admit, you
    10        will not get the response you want.  Therefore, if you want
    11        to, you have to think what evidence you would like to call
    12        or recall about whether there is a very real risk of
    13        suffering heart disease from a diet high in fat and so on,
    14        because it is not an easy question.
    15
    16   MR. MORRIS:  Just on that last point, the heart disease:
    17        Originally, the Plaintiffs made an admission which was
    18        meant to remove the need to bring it up during the case,
    19        heart disease as an issue.  When they changed their
    20        Statement of Claim to include causal risks, they then said
    21        that their admission would cover, as far as I remember,
    22        causality and, therefore, there was no need to bring
    23        evidence in the case.
    24
    25        As far as we can see, the meaning which you have decided
    26        cannot be greater than their original indicated meaning
    27        that they were contending for, which they said would not
    28        need to bring in any evidence about heart disease.  So,
    29        obviously, we have the meaning in front of us that we have
    30        now, but that is obviously an important consideration, as
    31        far as we are concerned, what I just said.
    32
    33   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  The position is that my ruling has said what,
    34        in my judgment, the meaning is.  It has also said, in my
    35        judgment, that meaning is not greater than the meaning
    36        which I gave the Plaintiffs leave to plead by way of
    37        amendment.
    38
    39   MS. STEEL:  So in that case we do not need to call any evidence
    40        because they have admitted that?
    41
    42   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  No.  I think it is wrong of you, in my view,
    43        to assume that the Defendants have admitted any of what
    44        appears in the meaning as I have found it to be.  You see,
    45        a lot of this is now past history because, at very best,
    46        you and those who represent the Plaintiffs may have had
    47        crossed wires about what was being alleged and what was
    48        being admitted.
    49
    50        But I do not see in this case any admission on behalf of 
    51        the First or Second Plaintiff that a diet high in fat, 
    52        sugar, animal products and salt (sodium) and low in fibre, 
    53        vitamins and minerals leads to the very real risk of
    54        suffering heart disease.
    55
    56   MS. STEEL:   Can I just say, what Mr. Morris said had slipped my
    57        mind about the fact that you cannot find a higher meaning
    58        than the one that the Plaintiffs had pleaded.  I would have
    59        thought, as a matter of law -- I mean, obviously, we are
    60        not lawyers so we are going to have to get legal advice on

Prev Next Index