Day 246 - 09 May 96 - Page 36


     
     1        rather than on the motivation for bringing the action in
     2        the first place.
     3
     4   MR. RAMPTON:  That is why I stood up. It  is because, to some
     5        extent, they are connected, since one feature of the
     6        defence to counterclaim is that.
     7
     8   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  But I have had quite a lot of evidence
     9        already from Mr. Preston.  I am just seeking to discourage
    10        the Plaintiffs from taking it further because I think the
    11        opposing points of view have been sufficiently canvassed.
    12
    13   MR. RAMPTON:  My Lord, I am not going to disagree with that.
    14
    15   MR. JUSTICE BELL: Anyway, bear it in mind.  You have the
    16        advantage over me in that you have -- it is not just a
    17        question of us, we both read what is here -- the advantage
    18        over me in that you look at them through the eyes of the
    19        Plaintiffs and may well see something which I do not see.
    20        So, I do not want to stop you putting questions.  I would
    21        like you to concentrate on the aspects I have just spoken
    22        about.
    23
    24   MS. STEEL:  OK. (To the witness): There is just one question
    25        about page 14 which is that the B says:  "M take high
    26        ground and prebrief in response to inquiries".
    27
    28        That little symbol with M with a line through the middle of
    29        it appears in quite a few documents.  Is that a shorthand
    30        for?
    31        A.  It is an abbreviation for McDonald's.
    32
    33   Q.   I thought it probably was but I thought it was best to
    34        check.
    35
    36        On page 16 there is further meeting on 21st March 1994.
    37        Were you present at that meeting?
    38        A.  Not that I can recall.
    39
    40   Q.   Do you know who attended it?
    41        A.  No.
    42
    43   Q.   The same for 11th April 1994 which appears on page 18.
    44        Were you present at that meeting?
    45        A.  No, I do not think so.  Not that I can recall.
    46
    47   MR. MORRIS:  Can I say, not going back on any rulings you have
    48        made already on these documents, but it must be the case
    49        that they should disclose who was present at these
    50        meetings.  If these meetings are relevant, and if we intend 
    51        to cross-examine Mr. Nicholson about them, or indeed any of 
    52        the inquiry agents, or anybody who might have been at the 
    53        meeting and still to come in this case, we should know who
    54        was present at those meetings, and indeed if Mike Love and
    55        Edi Bensilum were at those meetings and we want to draw the
    56        conclusion why they have not been called ----
    57
    58   MS. STEEL:  Or maybe even subpoena them.
    59
    60   MR. MORRIS: -- It cannot be irrelevant or privileged to know who

Prev Next Index