Day 182 - 02 Nov 95 - Page 58


     
     1        the IUF, and also an official report from the IUF signed by
     2        Dan Gallin about the -- well, headed "union victory at
     3        McDonald's in Norway".
     4
     5   MR. RAMPTON:  My Lord, that may be so.  Can I please intervene?
     6        It is apparent from that document that this report of what
     7        happened in Norway would not be admissible in the mouth of
     8        Mr. Gallin, were he to give oral evidence.  It is,
     9        therefore, not admissible as part of his Civil Evidence
    10        Act, because what he writes is: "We have been informed by
    11        our affiliated Norway", etcetera, "below is the union's own
    12        account of the dispute" -- that is to say, the HRAF's
    13        account.  So that must be excluded.
    14
    15   MR. MORRIS:  The problem with Mr. Rampton is that -- I am not
    16        going to read it all out, partly because we have dealt with
    17        it with most of the evidence today -- that it may not be
    18        evidence of the truth, but it is evidence of the fact that
    19        we have been told this by one of our witnesses, and it is
    20        therefore evidence of our reasonable belief, or whatever
    21        the words are, to justify, in respect of whatever that area
    22        covers in the case.  So, it does not have to be read into
    23        the record anyway.
    24
    25   MR. JUSTICE BELL: What I suggest -----
    26
    27   MR. MORRIS:  But it is relevant.
    28
    29   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  What I suggest you do is, I suggest that you
    30        leave that unread and leave any of the other IUF documents
    31        which you suggest -- although they may strictly not be
    32        proved as such, but are referred to in the first
    33        statement -- leave them unread and then, by all means, when
    34        you come to give evidence (if you do), just by way of
    35        comprehensive involvement, say (if it be so) that you took
    36        the view that you could accept them as true, if that is
    37        what your case is.  But however it is, I can hear any
    38        argument as to the relevance and admissibility in due
    39        course, or what part they play in the case, but I would not
    40        bother to read them now.
    41
    42   MR. MORRIS:  I was not intending to; and, also, I think here we
    43        are just talking about a general principle, because I am
    44        sure that there is no problem with our belief at all.  As a
    45        general principle, since it has been challenged by the
    46        Plaintiffs, I think we have a right to -----
    47
    48   MR. JUSTICE BELL: What I suggest you do, you have explained in
    49        broad terms what part you say they play in the case, and
    50        you can come back to that in due course. 
    51 
    52   MR. MORRIS:  Yes.  Of course, the Plaintiffs also have to 
    53        justify their reasonable beliefs about ---
    54
    55   MR. JUSTICE BELL: That is all to come.
    56
    57   MR. MORRIS: -- our counterclaim.
    58
    59   MR. JUSTICE BELL: You have read the second statement.
    60

Prev Next Index