Day 274 - 04 Jul 96 - Page 04
1
2 Next, it follows from all this that unless the parties have
3 obtained the other side's agreement for the admission of
4 documents which are important to their cases, or they have
5 strictly proved them before the end of this term, they will
6 be taking a risk that they will not be able to rely on
7 those documents, because the other side will not at the end
8 of the day be prepared to admit them.
9
10 It seems to me, having looked again at Barlow Lyde &
11 Gilbert's list attached to their 18th March 1996 letter,
12 that there are some important documents which appear still
13 to be in no-man's land. If I can refer to the list by way
14 of examples only, just picking one or two documents from
15 the list, document No. 4, which is in fact in pink volume
16 4, not 10 as appears on the list, that is country by
17 country list or lists of foam blowing agents used. Both
18 sides have made points on it. I query whether that will
19 all come to nothing if it is suggested or if I decide off
20 my own bat that it is not admissible. I am still
21 unconvinced about the relevance of blowing agents to an
22 issue in the case.
23
24 But if one looks at documents 80 to 81, which are in the
25 same area of recycling and waste, they are appendices 4 and
26 5 to Mr. Kuchukoff's statement in yellow volume 12, and
27 have figures, if my recollection is correct, in relation to
28 McDonald's recycled content paper packaging consumption
29 between 1987 and 1989. For all the evidence there has been
30 about this percentage or the consequences of this
31 percentage or that percentage of recycled paper, if what
32 the parties have so far treated as the raw material, no pun
33 intended, is contained in a document which I cannot take
34 into account because it is inadmissible, the whole may have
35 to be swept to one side.
36
37 Document No. 14 and documents listed thereafter in volume 6
38 are what I will call nutrition documents, apparently
39 produced by the first and/or second plaintiff. They
40 contain a number of nutritional tables, the contents of
41 which have not been proved, and, so far as I am aware, have
42 not been formally admitted, but which witnesses on both
43 sides have referred to. All that may be pointless if I
44 cannot take account of them because they are not admissible
45 in law. For all I know, the plaintiffs will not be
46 prepared to agree any of them. If the plaintiffs do not
47 agree all of them, there may be an argument as to whether
48 they can be taken as admissions by the plaintiffs against
49 interest, but that is questionable. The whole matter is up
50 in the air.
51
52 The same applies or might apply to the one sheet comparison
53 of nutritional content of two McDonald's meals and two
54 homemade meals which Professor Crawford produced and which
55 is behind his third statement. Is that admissible? It
56 appears to me that Mr. Crawford certainly was not in a
57 position to prove it. If it is not admissible, as it may
58 not be, is it agreed? Because if it is not admissible in
59 its own right and it is not agreed, I have got to ignore
60 the figures on it.
