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

Prev Next Index