Day 087 - 10 Feb 95 - Page 48
1 the application with these words:
2
3 "I am afraid I do not think that the disclosure of would
4 be a considerable number of documents is essential to the
5 fair disposal and saving of cost. I do not think it is
6 necessary for the fair disposal of this action to
7 double-check, as it were, every source of information which
8 every witness has had."
9
10 Then Mrs. Steel raised a point about a report which
11 Mr. Clark had made for McDonald's on a previous occasion,
12 and rejected that application on the grounds that that
13 report had been privileged and that the reference to it in
14 Mr. Clark's statement had not waived the privilege. That
15 is through the middle of page 79. Then finally on page 80
16 the application was renewed or had been made in relation to
17 Mr. Jackson as well, and Ms. Steel said: "In relation to
18 Mr. Jackson I suppose really the comments in relation to
19 that are the same as what was said in relation to other
20 suppliers." Your Lordship said: "I think that follows the
21 same result."
22
23 My Lord, unless circumstances have changed in your
24 Lordship's opinion, that should, in our submission, remain
25 the position. If I had to argue it, quite apart from the
26 fact whether we have any power over Sun Valley or McKey's
27 document, which is something we may have to come back to,
28 I would argue that your Lordship having made that ruling
29 already (this sounds rude but it is not to be meant) your
30 Lordship is "functus" on this issue unless circumstances
31 have changed.
32
33 Being that all as it may, I tried to make the helpful
34 suggestion that for a limited range of documents such as
35 those seen by Mr. Jackson at Sun Valley and McKey, I would
36 ask them whether they would be willing to disclose them.
37 If they say yes, well and good, the documents will be
38 produced. If they say no, then, alas, we shall have to
39 revisit the point and it will have to be argued in full
40 with evidence, I fear, of what the strict contractual
41 position is between McDonald's and those two companies.
42
43 My Lord, can I pass on to Jarret? The position in relation
44 to Jarret is completely different, as it is indeed to
45 G.D. Bowes & Sons in Norfolk. Well, it is not completely
46 different. In my submission it is the same but it is even
47 more clear. They are not in any sense McDonald's
48 suppliers.
49
50 MR. JUSTICE BELL: What you have just said applies to your
51 fourth topic, Mr. Walkers 13,000.
52
53 MR. RAMPTON: Indeed it does. My Lord, I make two observations
54 about that. I missed that out, I was coming back to it.
55 I make two observations about that. First, that they are
56 not our documents. Second, I would not dream (this is a
57 different from what I said before because I take a
58 different attitude to it) of asking Mr. Walker to produce
59 the documentation underlying those 13,000 plus patties
60 destroyed every day for the purposes of testing. The
