Day 198 - 08 Dec 95 - Page 32


     
     1
     2   MR. MORRIS:  Yes, we have actually restricted ourselves from
     3        asking any of our witnesses about other stores regarding
     4        Colchester, so that would be a can of worms if it were to
     5        be opened up to other stores.
     6
     7   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  That is your only objection, is it?
     8
     9   MR. MORRIS:  That is our only fundamental objection.  We do not
    10        like the way Mr. Rampton has introduced the subject, and we
    11        do feel that until the request for further and better
    12        particulars that we were strongly advised to get or they
    13        would oppose Mr. Coton coming, even though, apparently now,
    14        they are saying that if someone is an important witness
    15        then they should come, that the whole opening up of this
    16        has been precisely because they asked for further and
    17        better particulars as a way of getting names from people
    18        higher up and practices identified so that they can call
    19        another half a dozen witnesses to try and recover what had
    20        happened with us, our witnesses coming to tell what
    21        happened in the Colchester store.
    22
    23        So, I do feel that context is important but, having said
    24        that, this is a development which it is clear to us the
    25        Plaintiffs have engineered.  We do not have any objections.
    26
    27   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  No.
    28
    29   MR. MORRIS:  Apart from the Clacton or any other stores.
    30
    31   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I am afraid that I cannot accept the
    32        situation that it has been engineered by the First or
    33        Second Plaintiff, or those who act on their behalf.  I am
    34        not making criticism of anyone in this case.
    35
    36        The fact is that when it came to light at the end of
    37        October that Mr. Coton could and was willing to give
    38        evidence, the case was extended in two matters of potential
    39        significance, in my judgment.  The first was the allegation
    40        of docking hours of crew which had not appeared at all, and
    41        the second was a very considerable expansion in the
    42        Defendants' case of intense and continuing pressure on
    43        management which might lead to pairing of costs in undue
    44        ways.
    45
    46        The Defendants have not, in fact, objected to Mr. Rampton
    47        calling the further evidence which he summarised, and which
    48        I do not propose to repeat now, and it seems to me only
    49        right and fair that he should be allowed to call that
    50        evidence. 
    51 
    52        The Defendants have taken one point of objection.  They say 
    53        that to allow Mr. Harney to give evidence of the pressure,
    54        or lack of it, he was under when he was Store Manager at
    55        Clacton would be unfair because Mr. Gibney's evidence was
    56        kept to Colchester as a result of an indication, if not a
    57        ruling, which I actually made.
    58
    59        It seems to me that the question of continuing pressure is
    60        relevant to the issues which have arisen in this case.

Prev Next Index