Day 082 - 01 Feb 95 - Page 07
1 MS. STEEL: Is it possible for Mr. Rampton to say what the other
2 one is that happened the other day?
3
4 MR. RAMPTON: No, I cannot remember.
5
6 MR. JUSTICE BELL: No, if by the time we part this morning it
7 has been discovered, I am sure he will, otherwise I am sure
8 a way will be found of communicating it to you. I do not
9 want go through that now, but if you would just look at it
10 for a moment, by all means read it all, but the parts you
11 should particularly read are the first pages up to just
12 below G on page 1209, then on page 1211, the last complete
13 paragraph from just below F to just below H; on page 1212
14 from just above B to C which sets out a definition of what
15 is prime facie relevant -- it is quite a wide definition --
16 and then on page 1213 from E to B over the page which deals
17 with the implied obligation that may very well not be
18 relevant to any argument I am about to hear, but it relates
19 back to something Mr. Rampton said the other day about the
20 implied obligation of a party who obtains documents on
21 discovery not to use them for any purpose other than the
22 dispute in which they were obtained. So, it seems to me
23 that those are the most important parts of that decision.
24
25 Next there are two considerations, whether McDonald's
26 should be put to listing any further documents apart from
27 those which you have seen which are or have been in their
28 power you are really concerned with; secondly, whether if
29 there are such documents to be listed they should be
30 produced for your inspection. I am not inviting any
31 response but that is why I have drawn your attention to
32 that authority.
33
34 The matter I touched on the other day is this, that you
35 will remember my ruling on the application for leave to
36 amend paragraph 4F, the meanings alleged by McDonald's in
37 relation to nutrition? If I might suggest, read the New
38 Zealand case in relation to the extent to which a Plaintiff
39 in a libel action is stuck with the meaning which he has
40 alleged in his claim. But it may very well be that the New
41 Zealand case does not reflect English law. In that case
42 counsel for the Plaintiff said they stood or fell on the
43 meaning which they pleaded, so they could not fall back on
44 some lesser but still defamatory meaning; whereas we have
45 an authority which Mr. Rampton referred to where the
46 Plaintiff was Slim and it was approved by the present
47 Master of the Rolls in a more recent case -- I have
48 forgotten the name of the forensic scientist concerned ---
49
50 MR. RAMPTON: Skewes, my Lord.
51
52 MR. JUSTICE BELL: -- Skewes, which indicates that the Plaintiff
53 can rely on any meaning provided, of course, it is still
54 defamatory which is less than the one pleaded. The point
55 of this is that when you are considering who, if anyone,
56 you want recalled and what questions, whether in-chief or
57 in cross-examination, you want to ask any nutritional
58 expert who comes into the witness box in the future, do
59 not, I would suggest, just ask questions directed at the
60 meaning which McDonald's now have leave to plead which
