Day 115 - 06 Apr 95 - Page 55


     
     1        speaking, the Defendants have to put this or these
     2        statements into the mouth of the person who made the
     3        document.
     4
     5   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Strictly speaking, they do, but if the fact
     6        is there is, in fact, absolutely no issue but that there
     7        was a proposal in the form of the first three sheets, that
     8        Mr. Geoff Boule did write a letter in the terms of the
     9        letter of 26th January 1993 on behalf of Sun Poultry --
    10        I have not had time to read it all -- does the letter refer
    11        to the conditions of employment which at the moment are
    12        clipped to it?
    13
    14   MR. RAMPTON:  My Lord, while I am cross-examining I cannot be
    15        expected to read or when I am listening to a witness giving
    16        evidence in-chief documents that are served on me at the
    17        last possible moment.
    18
    19   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  No, I appreciate that.  The only point I am
    20        making is that in the fullness of time I suggest that you
    21        tell me whether there is any dispute that those are Sun
    22        Valley Poultry Limited documents.  If there is no dispute,
    23        I can read them and form my own interpretation of them.
    24        There is really no need for any kind of even informal Civil
    25        Evidence Act notice or counter notice.  If you come back
    26        and say:  "No, we do dispute that they are actually Sun
    27        Valley documents", then we will have to look at the
    28        technicalities.
    29
    30   MR. RAMPTON:  My Lord, it is not technical.  Maybe they are Sun
    31        Valley documents, I have absolutely no idea at all.
    32
    33   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  No, but you will be able to find out.
    34
    35   MR. RAMPTON:  Some of them look as if they are because they have
    36        "Sun Valley" headings on.  I will be able to find out.  If
    37        I decide that I want the Defendants to call the witness to
    38        explain the documents, then I shall serve a counter notice
    39        and then they will have to do it.
    40
    41   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Will they?  If it is agreed that a document
    42        in the form of the first document dated 22nd October 1991
    43        was prepared by or on behalf of Mr. Boule, albeit as a
    44        statement of a proposal, and if it is agreed that a letter
    45        was written by Mr. Boule in the terms of the letter of 26th
    46        January 1993, and had conditions of employment for catchers
    47        attached to it, for instance, why do the Defendants have to
    48        call any evidence at all?  If they do not call any
    49        evidence, I may or may not be able to get much from the
    50        documents themselves.  How is it any different, for 
    51        instance, to letters which are put in written by one 
    52        American lawyer and another about a matter? I can go to 
    53        them for ---
    54
    55   MR. RAMPTON:  Of course.
    56
    57   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  -- information.
    58
    59   MR. RAMPTON:  Of course, my Lord.  There is, with respect, an
    60        important distinction.  If the letters are merely evidence

Prev Next Index