Day 083 - 06 Feb 95 - Page 22
1 document in respect of which an issue arises.
2
3 The decision of principle would then be applied by your
4 clients in any future list which they gave of documents in
5 their possession, control or power. An awful lot of
6 documents one might really have no information about. For
7 instance, it is something which I may need your help on and
8 may wish to hear Ms. Steel and Mr. Morris on, but I do not
9 mind saying I have been reconsidering what I said on
10 20th December in relation to documentation about supply of
11 any beef from Brazil to the First and Second Plaintiffs,
12 and I may need some help on that later. But if directed
13 your clients, having heard argument, to make a list of any
14 documentation which they had in relation to the supply of
15 any beef, quite apart from the 80 tonnes which they had
16 received from Brazil, I mean, it might be dead easy because
17 the answer might be there never was any and there are no
18 documentations anyway, but if I ever made such a direction
19 it would be for your clients to apply any test which I set
20 out in deciding whether they had or ever had had any such
21 document in their power and then, if the Defendants in any
22 way doubted that, it would be for them to say: "Well,
23 look, they must have or must have had this, that or the
24 other and by your test it must have been or must be in the
25 First or Second Plaintiffs' power".
26
27 I am just trying to see what the practicalities are.
28 I understand the position that one can, for instance, make
29 a ruling on audits, for instance -- abattoir audits and
30 things of that kind -- because one has a certain amount of
31 information about them. But have I analysed the situation
32 correctly with regard to documents which at this stage one
33 does not know exist and where one knows nothing at all
34 about what the contractual relationship are?
35
36 MR. RAMPTON: My Lord, the Brazil example -- I leave aside
37 entirely the question of whether the Defendants are
38 entitled ---
39
40 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes, leave that on one side.
41
42 MR. RAMPTON: -- given as your Lordship has earlier said, there
43 really has not been any foundation for making any
44 allegation about Brazil whatsoever -- that is quite a good
45 example. I cannot remember precisely what the relative
46 shareholdings were in McKey in 1983. My belief is -----
47
48 MR. JUSTICE BELL: McDonald's were the majority shareholders.
49 Certainly Mr. David Walker was a minority shareholder.
50
51 MR. RAMPTON: They were the majority shareholder.
52
53 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I think Keystone had a shareholding but he
54 said McDonald's always had at least 51 per cent, did he
55 not?
56
57 MR. RAMPTON: Assume for the sake of argument that McDonald's
58 had 51 per cent in 1983, therefore, McKey was a controlled
59 subsidiary, I think probably of the corporation, not of the
60 English company -- for the purpose of argument, that does
