Day 190 - 23 Nov 95 - Page 21
1 questions which you have to ask in relation to
2 admissibility is whether the person making the statement
3 has authority to make it on behalf of his employer, the
4 company; and whether you have authority to make the
5 statement is a question of fact just as much in the issue
6 of admissibility of the statement as evidence as it is in
7 relation to deciding whether the company can be estopped.
8 The authority to make the statement is on a route to both;
9 and that is the only reason, I think, Mr. Rampton is
10 quoting this.
11
12 MR. MORRIS: Yes. But these are about authority to make
13 statements which are binding on a company.
14
15 MR. JUSTICE BELL: No, just authority to make the statements,
16 which are then taken to be the statements of the company,
17 whether as evidence against the company, i.e. admission, or
18 the basis for an estoppel.
19
20 You think about it, and if you think at the end of the day
21 you have a good point on that, I am not going to put you to
22 arguing -- if you tell me, at the end of Mr. Rampton's
23 argument, that you want to go away and think about all
24 this, you certainly shall have time to do so.
25
26 MR. MORRIS: Can I just go on, to sort of save time, if
27 Mr. Rampton is going to go through references which may not
28 be relevant -----
29
30 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I do not think one can say that of this.
31 Where it takes us is a matter for argument.
32
33 MR. RAMPTON: Your Lordship has conceived my point correctly.
34 Mr. Morris has not. I will leave it there for the moment.
35
36 The next one is a case called The Prinses Juliana.
37 My Lord, it is interesting, not so much for its facts
38 because, on the facts -- it was a shipping case -- the
39 pilot whose out-of-court statement was sought to be adduced
40 by the plaintiffs in that case was not, in fact, at the
41 time employed by the defendants; and so it would have
42 failed anyway. But there are some perhaps useful
43 expressions of principle on page 143 of the report which is
44 [1936] Probate, 139.
45
46 At 143, in the judgment of Bucknill J., starting at the
47 top:
48
49 "They" -- that is the solicitors for the
50 plaintiffs -- "subpoenaed the Trinity House
51 authorities to produce the report, and it was
52 brought into Court yesterday in a sealed
53 envelope. The question now is whether that
54 report is admissible as evidence on behalf of
55 the plaintiffs.
56 Obviously, if justice to be administered
57 properly, the greatest precaution must be taken
58 to see that the best evidence available is
59 presented to the Court and that its judgment is
60 grounded on reliable evidence. The chief
