Day 243 - 02 May 96 - Page 33
1 up to you.
2
3 MS. STEEL: OK. Can I clarify something again which is that
4 where the Plaintiffs have said they want to rely on a
5 document, if it is like the nutrition guide, say, and it
6 has the figures in for the fat content and things like
7 that, we might not want to object to the figures from the
8 analysis of the food but we might want to object to the
9 part that says, "Every time you eat at McDonald's you will
10 be eating good nutritious food".
11
12 If they say that they want to rely on a document, that does
13 not mean that they can rely on a statement like "Every time
14 you eat at McDonald's".
15
16 MR. JUSTICE BELL: You are perfectly entitled to say, "We will
17 admit the figures in the table (in table whatever) in that
18 document", but nothing else.
19
20 MS. STEEL: But if we did not object, that would not mean we
21 had accepted the rest of the stuff in the document as it
22 was true.
23
24 MR. JUSTICE BELL: No. You are entitled just to say nothing at
25 all, but it would be helpful to know in advance. It would
26 be helpful to me, apart from anything else. Some documents
27 may not have an evidential status of their own, but they
28 include in them information which, if the parties agree
29 that it is true or agree that they accept it for the
30 purposes of the case, I can take into account because it is
31 an admission made by both parties. It does not have to be
32 of the whole document. For instance, I think it follows,
33 from the way the evidence has come out, that you appear to
34 be accepting that some of the tables include accurate
35 information because you have relied upon it; but the
36 conclusion to be drawn as to whether McDonald's food is
37 nutritious or not is very much in dispute.
38
39 What you should do your best to do is to go through the
40 list which Mrs. Brinley-Codd sent you and make some notes
41 on it as to what you accept and do not accept, either so
42 far as the whole document is concerned or particular parts
43 of it.
44
45 MS. STEEL: OK. We will try.
46
47 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I really think it would be dangerous of me to
48 make any statement which appeared to be an overall answer
49 as to what is admissible and what is not, because the
50 moment that was done it would be discovered that there was
51 a particular document to which it did not apply, and one
52 party or the other might say, "Well, we thought the judge
53 said that that was admissible and now we find it is not".
54 It has to be done on a document by document basis or, at
55 the very least, on a class of document by class of document
56 basis.
57
58 MS. STEEL: OK.
59
60 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Even the latter has its dangers.
