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.

Prev Next Index