Day 144 - 28 Jun 95 - Page 72

     
     1        papers applying to the UK, that it is applicable in this
     2        country as well, subject to again it being impracticable
     3        for some reason in this country.
     4
     5        All this is subject to there being any specific evidence
     6        which says, no, it does not apply.  So, what you do not
     7        have to put to Mr. Stein is a document which is, clearly, a
     8        McDonald's document in order merely to ask him:  "Do you
     9        accept that that reflects McDonald's Corporation's
    10        thinking?"  It is unnecessary.
    11
    12   MR. MORRIS:  We can rely on it at a later stage.
    13
    14   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  You can rely on it as a free standing
    15        document.  If you have someone who has cast doubt on it
    16        applying, then by all means ask Mr. Stein, or anyone else
    17        you think is relevant evidence, to see if you get the same
    18        answer.  But you can rely on me thinking, subject to
    19        anything Mr. Rampton says (and I will give him the
    20        opportunity to say anything which he may wish to say in a
         moment), I will accept McDonald's documents as reflecting
    22        the thinking at the time.
    23
    24   MR. MORRIS:  Obviously, this document, I brought it up for a
    25        particular purpose which was the Happy Meals and the toys
    26        and the use of toys to get kids to come in regularly, and
    27        things like that, which is relevant to the leaflet.
    28
    29   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  You do not actually have to ask someone like
    30        Mr. Stein about that.  If you are in doubt about a matter,
    31        whether you have enough in the document itself, as it were,
    32        but all means raise it.  Is there anything you wanted to
    33        say about that, Mr. Rampton?  Have I made a false
    34        assumption?
    35
    36   MR. RAMPTON:  Only this, my Lord, that I will not accept that
    37        necessarily in the case where the document is a McDonald's
    38        document not emanating from what your Lordship has called
    39        the "nerve centre or the brain" of the Company.
    40
         Documents issued, for example, by owner/operators in
    42        different parts of the world cannot be classified as
    43        Plaintiffs' document, unless it is accepted that they
    44        reflect Company policy.  They are particular to that
    45        owner/operator.
    46
    47        So far as what your Lordship might call central documents
    48        or centrally issued documents are concerned, my Lord, my
    49        belief is that the law would be that those are statements
    50        made by a party to the action which are evidence against 
    51        him, prime facie evidence against him, if they are thought 
    52        to be against him, unless he rebuts them by evidence. 
    53
    54   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I was talking about what you -- I think it is
    55        not a bad phrase to categorise the matter, centrally issued
    56        documents.  If it is a memo or something issued by a
    57        franchisee, or if it is a memo issued by an individual, for
    58        instance, a particular manager of a particular store, I do
    59        not consider, subject to any argument, such a person to be
    60        the nerve centre and brain of the Company.  So, you may