Day 181 - 01 Nov 95 - Page 52
1 So, I mean, it could be five, but I think these figures are
2 more or less accurate.
3
4 Q. Right.
5 A. Five years for the records and seven years for the
6 claim. But then you would have to get me the Statute and
7 just look at it, if you need to know exactly. I am sorry
8 I cannot be more precise.
9
10 Q. Right. But records kept -- say records made this year --
11 does it apply to them; do they have to be kept?
12 A. No, because fresh records would not be necessary from
13 30th August 1993, when the councils ceased to have effect.
14
15 MS. STEEL: OK.
16
17 MR. MORRIS: Can we clarify? So the records that McDonald's had
18 before June 1990 or before September, or whatever it is
19 now, October 1990, would have to be kept from that time
20 onwards up until August 1993?
21
22 MR. RAMPTON: My Lord, I want to think about this.
23
24 MR. MORRIS: Would have to be kept until now -----
25
26 MR. RAMPTON: (A), it is a matter of law; and (B), it does not
27 arise out of cross-examination.
28
29 MR. MORRIS: I am just clarifying what it means.
30
31 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I cannot accept it from the witness, I am
32 sorry.
33
34 MS. STEEL: It does. It arose out of something that was said
35 during cross-examination.
36
37 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I have not interrupted you, but, again, it is
38 a matter of law. It must be a matter of construction of
39 some statutory provision.
40
41 MS. STEEL: I just thought it would be helpful, if Mr. Pearson
42 knew, to find out the position.
43
44 MR. JUSTICE BELL: It would. But then, again, this is no
45 disrespect to Mr. Pearson. In fact, he has once or twice
46 said "I think", which may mean that he is not absolutely
47 confident. But even if he expressed an absolutely
48 confident position, I would have to check it from the
49 legislation.
50
51 MS. STEEL: I am not disputing it. I just thought it would be
52 helpful to find out whether it was still applicable or
53 not.
54
55 (To the witness): You were asked about whether or not
56 McDonald's would have had -- I do not know how to summarise
57 it -- basically, the point about whether they would have a
58 ton of bricks coming down on them if they were not giving
59 workers proper overtime.
60
