Day 243 - 02 May 96 - Page 06
1 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Or at least Mr. Rampton does not take an
2 objection, so I am prepared to leave it for argument in due
3 course. Do you want to say anything about (7), Ms. Steel?
4 It is more convenient for me to take them item by item?
5
6 MS. STEEL: No, I would agree with what Mr. Morris says.
7
8 MR. JUSTICE BELL: The second sentence of paragraph (10).
9
10 MR. MORRIS: Yes. Obviously, experts are in the same way
11 entitled to draw on various sources for their research. It
12 is up to the Plaintiffs to question, to find out, to test,
13 any information or opinion that comes from an expert, but
14 they are certainly entitled to put that information and
15 that opinion forward.
16
17 MS. STEEL: May I say something on paragraph (10). I think that
18 that has already been in the case with previous witnesses.
19 I think it was referred to by some of the Plaintiffs'
20 witnesses -- I seem to remember it anyway.
21
22 MR. MORRIS: The drift of (9) and (10), in fact, (7) to (10), is
23 of McDonald's seeming reluctance to co-operate with waste
24 minimisation efforts, legal efforts, in Germany; whereas
25 they are seemingly saying something different about how
26 they are committed to such things which they have said in
27 court already to say she is contrasting that with what
28 their own witnesses have said in the witness box and
29 I think that that is very important.
30
31 Regarding the last sentence of (11), that she is entitled
32 to hold an opinion of the evidence that has been put, it is
33 not so much a judgment; it is not evidence that has been
34 put in fact. It quotes from the documents that were served
35 which we can refer to the original by McDonald's on this
36 issue and she is entitled to have an opinion on what
37 McDonald's are actually saying in those documents, which
38 basically seems to be as she says. Obviously that would be
39 our conclusion, but she is entitled to have an expert
40 opinion on McDonald's approach to waste reduction efforts
41 by local authorities and local communities.
42
43 MS. STEEL: Can I say on this point that it is, clearly, her
44 conclusion based on documentation and things that she has
45 seen, provided that documentation has come from McDonald's,
46 and we have had the contrary point of view put forward by
47 McDonald's witnesses asserting that they are leading the
48 field and what-have-you, so I think it is only fair that
49 she should be able to state her conclusion based on the
50 evidence that she has seen and then you have two
51 contrasting opinions which you can weigh up and decide
52 which you think is the more likely. But it is only fair
53 that she should be able to state her opinion as an expert.
54
55 MR. MORRIS: She is not summing up the evidence in the case; she
56 is just looking at specific McDonald's documents and saying
57 what they show to her. It is different from saying,
58 "I have looked at all the evidence in the case and it is
59 my conclusion that". In fact she specifies in that
60 sentence, "it is clear from these extracts" which she will
