Day 097 - 06 Mar 95 - Page 25

     
     1
     2   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  So, there is no objection to 12 then?
     3
     4   MR. RAMPTON:  No, then if the assertion is based on what is
     5        known of the Preston incident, that the outbreak was caused
     6        by under-cooking on that occasion, so be it.  I cannot
     7        object to it as a pleading anyway.
     8
     9   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Could I just understand, because there is no
    10        objection to 13 then?
    11
    12   MR. RAMPTON:  No, I thought 13 and 12 were the same incident
    13        which is my fault.
    14
    15   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Is there any objection to 12?
    16
    17   MR. RAMPTON:  Not as pleaded, no.  I know your Lordship knows
    18        this, but the Defendants may not, my objection at this
    19        stage is to the pleading.  The fact that I do not object to
    20        other parts of the proposed amendment should not be taken
         as meaning that I accept the accuracy of what is pleaded.
    22        That is a different question entirely.
    23
    24   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  So, the only one there is an outstanding
    25        objection to then, leaving aside 15, is No. 6 or part of
    26        No. 6?
    27
    28   MR. RAMPTON:  Yes.  My objection to the first two sentences of 6
    29        arise really from this, that so far as the first sentence
    30        is concerned, it is altogether too vague.  On the evidence
    31        so far given in this case and at this stage of the case, it
    32        is, we respectfully submit, quite improper to plead
    33        anything as general as that.  If this were a new pleading
    34        one would automatically ask:  "What are the pathogenic
    35        bacteria which are routinely found, in which of the raw
    36        meat products, as a consequence of which there is a risk of
    37        food poisoning?"
    38
    39        One knows, so far as I am yet aware, from the undisputed
    40        evidence in the case that the only bacterium of which that
         can be safely said and the only raw meat product (in the
    42        singular) is Salmonella in chicken.  The evidence, so far
    43        as E.coli is concerned, is that it is a rare bird.  If it
    44        had been pleaded that Salmonella -- I forget which variety
    45        it is -- is routinely found in raw chicken products, well,
    46        yes, then there would be no objection to the pleading.
    47
    48   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I suppose part of the purpose of that is not
    49        just a technical point, because it seems to me that the
    50        next stage might be to see what, if anything, your clients 
    51        admit in respect of any amendments which are allowed, 
    52        because you would argue that that stage comes before one 
    53        considers any further discovery there might be.
    54
    55   MR. RAMPTON:  Of course.  Until I have a precise pleading which
    56        is not, as it were, broadened in order to enlarge the
    57        discovery net, as will be much of my objection to the
    58        Brazilian part of the pleading when I come to that, as long
    59        as one has a precise pleading which fairly reflects the
    60        evidence and the position of the Defendants, then one can