Day 101 - 10 Mar 95 - Page 08

     
     1   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Can I just tell you one thing?  You say the
     2        evidence, whoever says, is not conclusive in relation to
     3        Preston.  There may be a sophistication that will crop up
     4        but, as far as I am concerned, it is conclusive that in
     5        January 1991 a number of people suffered food poisoning
     6        after eating burgers from McDonald's in Friargate, Preston,
     7        and so on.
     8
     9        If, in fact, you receive an admission to the amendment
    10        which I gave leave for you to plead not so long ago, if
    11        there is an admission ---
    12
    13   MR. RAMPTON:  My Lord, there will be.
    14
    15   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  -- then it will be a matter of fact, as far
    16        as I am concerned, that the cause of the food poisoning
    17        outbreak was under-cooking of burgers contaminated by
    18        E.coli 0157: H bacteria.
    19
    20   MS. STEEL:  Right.  That obviously saves time on this incident,
         but it does also relate to future incidents of
    22        under-cooking and things like that.
    23
    24   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  It relates to how concerned they may or may
    25        not be and what precautions they may or may not be taking.
    26        But if I can ask a rhetorical question:  Surely, you have
    27        all the answers you want to mount an argument in relation
    28        to that, and I will consider it as a factor together with
    29        all the other relevant evidence on that topic.
    30
    31   MR. MORRIS:  It is very helpful that Mr. Rampton said they are
    32        going to make an admission.  It saves a lot of time.
    33
    34   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes, very well.   It shortens matters.  Do
    35        not be anxious about anything I may have said some time ago
    36        about admissions for the purposes of a particular action
    37        only.  As far as I am concerned, what is admitted is so --
    38        full stop.
    39
    40   MR. RAMPTON:  My Lord, I will go a little bit further than that,
         if I may, with respect.  The questions which the Defendants
    42        have asked this witness and Mr. David Walker, for example,
    43        in relation to Preston, would, if this were a jury action,
    44        effectively, destroy or might effectively destroy the force
    45        of the admission.  It really does not serve their case,
    46        never mind what time it takes, to ask each of the witnesses
    47        what their own view is about -----
    48
    49   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes, that may or may not be, but I can see
    50        there has been some puzzlement, so far as the Defendants 
    51        are concerned, coming into the court, so far as I am aware, 
    52        as the first litigation they have ever been involved in, 
    53        when you and your clients -- I say "your clients" -- admit
    54        one thing and then witnesses do not admit it.  That causes
    55        you and me no turmoil, but I can see how it causes a
    56        non-lawyer some anxiety.
    57
    58   MR. RAMPTON:  All I am suggesting is there is not much point in
    59        asking the witnesses what their own personal view is.
    60