Day 097 - 06 Mar 95 - Page 28

     
     1        there is, might well be a McDonald's Second Plaintiff's
     2        document or it might be the evidence of a witness who was
     3        called, but that is evidence rather than facts pleaded.  Do
     4        you understand?  It does not harm you at all if the words
     5        "the company itself states" are taken out.
     6
     7   MS. STEEL:   I think the thing is that it is something that was
     8        said by Mr. Walker and I do not really see why ------
     9
    10   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  He is not McDonald's anyway.
    11
    12   MS. STEEL:  No, but he is their supplier and he said what their
    13        specifications were.
    14
    15   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  But what "the company itself states", that is
    16        the evidence you would pray in support.  Do you see?  It
    17        does not do you any harm.
    18
    19   MS. STEEL:  Yes, but I do not really understand because there
    20        are things like that in other pleadings as well.
    21
    22   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  There may well be and, perhaps, if there was
    23        an application part way through the case to put them in,
    24        I would be making the same comment.
    25
    26   MR. RAMPTON:  My Lord, the problem is that the McDonald's
    27        specification which is at tab 1B of pink VIII is for
    28        failure at five x 10 to the sixth, total via the colony
    29        count.  So, whatever Mr. Walker might say, it is not
    30        McDonald's who is saying it is 10,000,000.
    31
    32   MS. STEEL:  Certainly, 10,000,000 would be unacceptable by their
    33        standard.
    34
    35   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I am not objecting to the 10,000,000 for the
    36        moment.  It may be that when I have considered all the
    37        evidence as a result of your submissions I will say it
    38        should be five rather than 10 or one rather than 10.  Is
    39        there anything more you want to say about the words "the
    40        company itself states"?
    41
    42   MS. STEEL:   No.
    43
    44   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  What about ----
    45
    46   MS. STEEL:  The thing is that it does reflect on the fact that
    47        they set a standard and then they are not that bothered
    48        about it.  But I am not going to stand here arguing about
    49        it.
    50 
    51   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  You are not excluded from making that 
    52        comment.  If I say anything in the future, or Mr. Rampton 
    53        does, which it is suggested you cannot argue that the
    54        Second Plaintiffs acting for each of their own standards,
    55        you can refer me back to this but I do not expect that to
    56        arise for a moment.
    57
    58        The point taken in the first sentence is that you do not
    59        specify the pathogenic bacteria.
    60