Day 190 - 23 Nov 95 - Page 14
1 McDonald's.
2
3 That is quite distinct from the question whether they can
4 be characterised as admissions receivable against
5 McDonald's, having been made on McDonald's behalf.
6
7 My Lord, then there are a number of illustrations given by
8 Bowstead. I would ask your Lordship to notice number 4.
9 It is one of the cases I have here.
10
11 "4. A solicitor or counsel is retained to
12 conduct an action. Statements made by him in
13 the conduct and for the purposes of the action
14 are evidence against the client. But statements
15 made by him in casual conversation, and not in
16 the course and for the purposes of the action,
17 are not. So statements made by a solicitor for
18 the purposes of one action cannot be used as
19 evidence in another action which the solicitor
20 is conducting on behalf of the same client, and
21 admissions made by counsel at a trial have been
22 held not to be binding at a new trial which had
23 been ordered by the Court of Appeal."
24
25 I am not going to read all these illustrations, because
26 there is, I hope, a fair selection of examples in the
27 authorities. 8 is an interesting example, perhaps.
28
29 "8. The chairman of a company makes a statement
30 at a meeting of shareholders. The statement is
31 not an admission made on behalf of the company
32 and cannot be put in evidence as such against
33 the company by any third party."
34
35 MR. JUSTICE BELL: That is a possible illustration of if a Civil
36 Evidence Act notice is given and there were the appropriate
37 grounds which meant that no effective counternotice could
38 be served.
39
40 MR. RAMPTON: That is right.
41
42 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Then the statement of the chairman could go
43 in under the Civil Evidence Act.
44
45 MR. RAMPTON: As evidence of the truth of what he said at the
46 time. Yes, my Lord, that is absolutely right. But it
47 cannot be characterised as an admission against the
48 company.
49
50 MR. JUSTICE BELL: No.
51
52 MR. RAMPTON: This is why I said a moment ago that our belief is
53 that the rules about the admission of such out-of-court
54 statements as admissions are really quite restrictive.
55
56 My Lord, I have done these in chronological order. They
57 are important in this sense, partly because of the repeated
58 expressions of principle, all to the same effect; and
59 partly also because, in this particular instance, the
60 actual facts your Lordship may find quite helpful.
