Day 121 - 04 May 95 - Page 63
1 up matters he would like in evidence which are in your
2 statement but you were not asked about by Mr. Rampton, so
3 far as that is concerned.
4
5 MR. MORRIS: Yes. Just on page 15, paragraph 37?
6 A. Yes.
7
8 Q. In the sixth line down you said that you had no
9 recollection of talking to a journalist from the Daily
10 Mirror; is that correct?
11 A. That is true, yes.
12
13 Q. If we go to page 20 ----
14 A. Yes.
15
16 Q. Can you explain why the Company sought a waiver of its
17 legal obligation to employ a quota of people that are
18 registered disabled?
19
20 MR. RAMPTON: No, my Lord, that has been struck out. It is not
21 in the defence any more. The Defendants abandoned it, in
22 fact.
23
24 MR. MORRIS: We did not abandon it.
25
26 MR. RAMPTON: Yes, they did.
27
28 MR. MORRIS: We abandoned the point we were making, which is
29 that we were claiming they were in breach of the law by not
30 employing ----
31
32 MR. RAMPTON: No, my Lord, it is no longer ----
33
34 MR. MORRIS: We are not criticising the Company for being in
35 breach of the law ----
36
37 MR. RAMPTON: No, my Lord. I do beg Mr. Morris, through your
38 Lordship, to keep quiet while I make an objection. This is
39 not Hyde Park Corner nor the students' union, or indeed a
40 union meeting. It was abandoned by the Defendants. There
41 was a specific allegation. That part of Mr. Nicholson's
42 statement was there while the allegation still remained.
43 It was later removed. It is no part of this case, and it
44 is a waste of the court's time and our money to investigate
45 it now.
46
47 MS. STEEL: Could I say something about what Mr. Rampton just
48 said about Mr. Morris? Mr. Rampton actually got up, made
49 his objection and stopped speaking; Mr. Morris started
50 speaking and Mr. Rampton interrupted him. It is him who is
51 behaving ----
52
53 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I think Mr. Rampton clearly had more to say.
54 But, in any event, there was an allegation in relation to
55 the provisions of the Disabled Persons Employment Act
56 1994. That went out. There is nothing in the pleadings in
57 relation to it now.
58
59 MR. MORRIS: No. The allegation was that they were in breach of
60 the provisions. Then that allegation was admitted by the
