Day 164 - 26 Sep 95 - Page 38


     
     1        region.
     2
     3        How one can reasonably infer from that that the Plaintiffs
     4        in this case have in their custody, possession or power
     5        relevant statements, I have to say, mistifies me; I do not
     6        believe one can.
     7
     8        The second limb of my short submission on this question is
     9        this:  Plainly, this is not a proceeding which is anywhere
    10        near its conclusion.  What value, one wonders, would 50
    11        statements, if they be written statements, by various
    12        people about this affair have for the resolution of the
    13        case?  They would not be admissible.  That is for sure.
    14        They are not statements by people who, so far as I know,
    15        are going to be witnesses in the case; one does not even
    16        know whether their subjects matter is specifically, I mean.
    17
    18        Therefore, even if in principle they were in the power of
    19        either of the Plaintiffs in this case and were arguably
    20        thought to be of some marginal relevance to the case, your
    21        Lordship, once again I submit, would have to ask the
    22        question:  Are they really necessary or would they really
    23        be necessary for the fair disposal of this particular
    24        issue, given that Monsieur Lamti and his colleague, and in
    25        all probability two or three of the French franchisee's
    26        people on my side, are going to come and give live evidence
    27        in the court?
    28
    29        I do not desire to say anything more about that.  It is
    30        perhaps, understandably, another attempt by Mr. Morris to
    31        see if there is actually rather more to be found out about
    32        this case than he actually knows.
    33
    34        My Lord, then I think the only other thing I have to deal
    35        with is the Bath question.  I think I said a moment ago my
    36        problem with this is that it is all far too general.
    37        Mr. Logan, perhaps advisedly, I do not know, is very shy
    38        about naming names.  If he were to say, for example: "I am
    39        aware that the clock cards of X, Y or Z were altered
    40        illegitimately at a particular period" -- not a precise
    41        date; I would not expect that -- "when I was working
    42        there", and one notices that he says he was crew from 90 to
    43        91 though I think he became something else after that, if
    44        he were to say:  "I know that so and so's performance
    45        reviews were fudged or rushed or delayed", then one could,
    46        perhaps, make a reasonable stab at disclosing the relevant
    47        document.
    48
    49        The same goes for the weekly time sheets and the
    50        schedules.  Who, one asks, was given a schedule in order to 
    51        discipline him or her?  No details are given by Mr. Logan. 
    52        There has been plenty of time for him to give details.  The 
    53        long statement we now have is his second statement in the
    54        case.  I think that was served, at any rate, towards the
    55        end of last term.
    56
    57        So far as the last one, C, is concerned, the incident
    58        report forms regarding customer complaints, I have an
    59        additional comment to make, my Lord, and that is this -- it
    60        applies with some frequency to Mr. Morris' submissions in

Prev Next Index