Day 072 - 12 Jan 95 - Page 06
1 common practice. Also, the burden on the party seeking
2 discovery would be so great otherwise, the burden of proof,
3 because obviously you do not know what is in a document, it
4 is hard to prove that must be relevant.
5
6 So, the question is whether it is reasonable to suppose it
7 might, directly or indirectly, advance or damage a case.
8 So, having said that, and bearing in mind the extract that
9 you have quoted just relating to a case, it is clear that
10 all the material in those documents relate to matters at
11 issue, although not strictly about environment/index.html">litter (although
12 actually some of it does relate to company environment/index.html">litter waste as
13 well as customer environment/index.html">litter), it relates to disputes that they
14 were having with residents which is absolutely central to
15 this part of the case and the way that the -----
16
17 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I understand that in relation to disputes
18 about environment/index.html">litter, but how is it relevant in relation to
19 anything else?
20
21 MR. MORRIS: It is relevant in the fact of the way McDonald's
22 related to complaints that were made, not just on environment/index.html">litter,
23 but the other matters. We will contend -- that is the
24 reason I asked Mr. Stump if he could leave the courtroom --
25 that, for example, that if McDonald's have ever responded
26 at all on the environment/index.html">litter problem, it is because of the pressure
27 they have received. That is something which runs through
28 our whole case, if you like, in this trial, which is that
29 when the company is put under pressure they miraculously
30 develop policies and practices, or appear to, or an image
31 of dealing with those issues. That is why criticism should
32 be protected in this country -- one of the reasons.
33
34 So, in short, to me, I would say, without having to go into
35 every line of all those documents, it is clear that the
36 whole documentation is about McDonald's disputes with local
37 residents and residents associations; it is about how they
38 dealt with that dispute; it is about how they responded to
39 the residents and responded as regards environment/index.html">litter, and that it
40 is not possible to judge the weight of the evidence on
41 their commitment to dealing with the environment/index.html">litter issue and their
42 effectiveness with dealing with the environment/index.html">litter issue, without
43 being able to see the other matters which are clearly
44 related and maybe drawing some conclusions from that. I do
45 not know if we will draw conclusions from those other
46 matters because we have not seen what they are.
47
48 I believe I have the right to see those points and weigh up
49 in my mind whether I want to cross-examine on those as
50 well. I believe, in fact, having had some indication of
51 what the other matters are, I would do some, if not much,
52 cross-examination on those points which I cannot do at the
53 moment.
54
55 It is not related to credit; it is related to the nuts and
56 bolts of the dispute they had with residents and the
57 planning application that was made. It may be helpful to
58 look at Mr. Siddique's statement who is yet to come. I am
59 not going to go on much longer.
60
