Day 182 - 02 Nov 95 - Page 53


     
     1        called for you to provide them as live witnesses if you can
     2        or has he?
     3
     4   MR. RAMPTON:  I cannot because they are overseas.
     5
     6   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I know, but there might have been an
     7        indication:  "We would, nevertheless, like you to get them
     8        here if possible".
     9
    10   MR. RAMPTON:  No, absolutely not.
    11
    12   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  No, it has not happened.
    13
    14   MR. RAMPTON:  I am entirely neutral about that.  It saves time
    15        if they do not come.
    16
    17   MR. MORRIS:  What I will try to do is I will try to make contact
    18        by the end of this weekend and try to see what the
    19        situation is.  My understanding is that the owner of the
    20        stores that are relevant in this dispute in the Lyons area
    21        is now the Managing Director of McDonald's, France.
    22        Whatever legal complications he claims, or the Plaintiffs
    23        have claimed, that he has, it does not strike us that the
    24        instructions would be very difficult.
    25
    26   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I differ from you on that.  I think they are
    27        widespread matters.  The other thing you have to consider
    28         -- I said this to you before -- is that what you hope to
    29        gain by calling the witness, unless it is to get a whole
    30        lot of new information of which notice has not yet been
    31        given.
    32
    33   MR. MORRIS:  Right.  You see, our position is (and always has
    34        been) that we prefer to call our witnesses if we can
    35        because their evidence is stronger for that.
    36
    37   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  No, I do not accept -----
    38
    39   MR. MORRIS:  I understand this is not challenged.
    40
    41   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  That may be so where there is a challenge.
    42        In theory, it is so even where there is no challenge,
    43        because the other party may be able to point to part of a
    44        statement and say: "Well, that, even on the face of it, is
    45        inherently unlikely"; whereas, if you call the witness
    46        there might be a ready explanation for some inherent
    47        unlikelihood ----
    48
    49   MR. MORRIS:  The Plaintiffs have the option of cross-examining
    50        and they may get nowhere with their cross-examination. 
    51 
    52   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  But, quite frankly, that is not your 
    53        concern.  You have a perfectly valid Civil Evidence Act
    54        notice, even allowing for the fact (and I have not got any
    55        one in mind) that here and there there may be some point
    56        which could be taken.  I really have to say to you again
    57        what I said a few weeks ago, that the essence of the
    58        allegations which the witnesses make is clear from the
    59        statement and, for whatever reason, McDonald's are not
    60        calling evidence to contradict it.

Prev Next Index