Day 097 - 06 Mar 95 - Page 27
1 MR. JUSTICE BELL: That is the sort of thing one could have an
2 argument about in due course, I suppose. The second
3 sentence does not cause you concern because one has had the
4 evidence and one will just have to see whether that is
5 sustained or not.
6
7 MR. RAMPTON: One has had the evidence. As I say, what actually
8 puzzled me was the statement of the company itself which
9 I took to be McDonald's. I was not aware of any such
10 statement anywhere. Again, if this were a virgin pleading,
11 one would ask for particulars there to find out what was
12 actually meant by it and where the figure of 10,000,000
13 came from.
14
15 MR. JUSTICE BELL: If one put which witnesses called on behalf
16 of the Plaintiffs -- you could miss out "the company itself
17 states", could one not?
18
19 MR. RAMPTON: Indeed one could.
20
21 MS. STEEL: That was the evidence of Mr. Walker. He said it was
22 McDonald's specifications.
23
24 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes, but we do not have to have things like
25 "which the company states" in. They do not add anything.
26 You just refer to the evidence in due course. I am going
27 to hear you in a moment, but this is just a suggestion, if
28 one took out the words "The company itself states" so that
29 it was "Meat which contains unsatisfactory levels of
30 bacterium, more than 10,000,000 bacteria per gramme is,
31 nonetheless, turned into patties for serving to customers",
32 could there be any objection to that?
33
34 MR. RAMPTON: No, not as a pleading. As I say, I am a bit
35 puzzled by the figure of 10,000,000 but that is a question
36 of -----
37
38 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Maybe but that would come out in the wash.
39
40 MR. RAMPTON: Yes, it would.
41
42 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Let us just take stock. You are to have
43 leave because there is no objection and, in any event, for
44 reasons which, therefore, I need not give, I consider it
45 right to give you leave to amend your Defence and
46 Particulars of Justification and Fair Comment in the
47 respects set out in paragraphs numbered 7 to 14 inclusive.
48 This is my numbering; paragraph 7 being the one at the foot
49 of the first page and 14 being the last paragraph in
50 relation to food poisoning before one gets to
51 interrogatory. The only issue is in relation to paragraph
52 6, the first one under food poisoning.
53
54 Can I deal with the question of "meat which contains
55 unsatisfactory levels of bacteria"? Is there any reason
56 for having in "the company itself states"? Your assertion
57 of fact is "meat which contains unsatisfactory levels of
58 bacteria, more than 10,000,000 bacteria per gramme is,
59 nonetheless, turned into patties for serving to
60 customers". The evidence in support of that, if evidence
