Day 241 - 26 Apr 96 - Page 14
1
2 So, that is all really; we are just asking for, not a hard
3 and fast rule for all witnesses, but we accept it for the
4 employment case that 17th May is a reasonable deadline
5 really for that part of the case; probably we would accept
6 it for other parts of the case as well that have been
7 generally dealt with.
8
9 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I am not making a hard and fast rule, but
10 I am indicating that it is unlikely that I will grant
11 leave. If you have some particular potential witness in
12 mind, you must be prepared to mention it to me as soon as
13 possible giving me at least a summary of the kind of
14 evidence you expect that person to give.
15
16 MR. MORRIS: Yes, OK, we will accept that.
17
18 MR. JUSTICE BELL: You are taking a very considerable risk, in
19 other words, and the same would apply to McDonald's if a
20 witness is served after 17th May, and the matter has not
21 been raised with me in some summary of the kind of evidence
22 you are looking for to be given.
23
24 The two other matters, quite apart from reading any Civil
25 Evidence Act witnesses, are the question of leave for the
26 Plaintiffs to adduce evidence from Richard Wright, Grainne
27 Trout -- both of whom are the subject of Civil Evidence Act
28 notices -- Denise Pearson and Matthew Howes. The first
29 thing I need to know is whether there is any objection to
30 evidence being given by those witnesses, whether in Civil
31 Evidence Act statements or from the witness box.
32
33 MS. STEEL: In respect of Denise Pearce, it is not specifically
34 objecting to her coming; it is just that it seems that the
35 main thrust of her evidence is to assert that the Wages
36 Inspectorate were satisfied with their record. In
37 paragraph 5 of her statement she talks about what
38 Mr. Mills' approach was and it is just the case that all
39 that must be hearsay and, therefore, should not be
40 allowed.
41
42 MR. RAMPTON: Can I respond to that? That is not the main
43 thrust at all. The main thrust or the only thrust of
44 Denise Pearce's evidence is not what Mr. Mills thought or
45 the Wages Inspectorates thought, or what their degree of
46 satisfaction was, but what it was expressed to McDonald's
47 to be. That is the crux or thrust of her evidence.
48
49 For all she knows, Mr. Mills was fibbing, but if he told
50 her that he was satisfied, then my argument in due course
51 -- how far it takes me is a matter for your Lordship --
52 will be: Well, in that case, McDonald's are justified in
53 continuing in the way that they were conducting themselves
54 at that time.
55
56 MS. STEEL: I will say that, clearly, on what Mr. Rampton has
57 just said that it is going to be hearsay, "The main thrust
58 of the evidence is not what Mr. Mills thought, it is not
59 what the Wages Inspectorate thought, or what their degree
60 of satisfaction was, but what it was expressed to
