Day 163 - 25 Sep 95 - Page 10

     
     1        Lordship's leave or something like it, then, of course, no
     2        further evidence would be required.  That would obviate the
     3        need to call further evidence completely because the
     4        Defendants do not, nor do their experts, contend food
     5        causes these conditions -- never have done.
     6
     7        All they have proposed is that a diet which is unduly
     8        weighted in favour of these substances may give rise to a
     9        causal risk of heart disease and cancer.  That is as far as
    10        they have been able to go.  If your Lordship ruled --
    11        I know it is a formulated expression -- that the leaflet
    12        had something like what your Lordship said a moment ago,
    13        then, arguably, once again that would put the case beyond
    14        the Defendants' reach, because what your Lordship spoke of
    15        is what the pamphlet speaks of, that is to say, that the
    16        food -- may I put it this way, what the Plaintiffs have
    17        said on the nutritional leaflets and what their experts
    18        have said in evidence is this:  It would not be prudent to
    19        eat McDonald's food all the time or that kind of food all
    20        the time.  What we say the leaflet says is, however one
         expresses it, that it would be imprudent to eat McDonald's
    22        food at all, hence we say or whence we say the
    23        heading: "What's so unhealthy about McDonald's food?"
    24
    25        I do not know if there is anything useful I can say about
    26        Charleston at this stage.
    27
    28   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  If I could just think aloud?  What I would
    29        welcome your assistance on, Mr. Rampton, is whether I do
    30        have the power actually to rule on meaning at this stage.
    31        If I have, then whether it would be wise to do so; if
    32        I have not, whether it would help everyone if I gave an
    33        indication?  I will hear all argument which all parties
    34        wish to put about the meaning and give an indication which,
    35        to be realistic, would be tantamount to a ruling.
    36
    37        It is trite to say one does not want to pre-empt decisions,
    38        but I have very much in mind that the Master of the Rolls
    39        in the Skuse case (which we had cause to look at on a
    40        previous occasion) said that the court should be cautious
         of over elaborate analysis of the material in issue.
    42
    43   MR. RAMPTON:  Absolutely.
    44
    45   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Evidence does not help me on the meaning.  So
    46        it would not be a question of me jumping the gun when
    47        I might hear further evidence which would change my mind in
    48        some way.
    49
    50   MR. RAMPTON:  I quite agree. 
    51 
    52   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  With those thoughts in mind, everything seems 
    53        to me to point to the benefits of me deciding what the
    54        meaning is in relation to nutrition before we have the
    55        witnesses recalled.  If when I have decided what the
    56        meaning is and if Mr. Morris' argument succeeded, we will
    57        not have any witnesses; if his argument to strike it out
    58        fails, then at least the parties will know what I think the
    59        leaflet means.  They can decide which witnesses should be
    60        recalled in the light of that and they can decide what