Day 190 - 23 Nov 95 - Page 26


     
     1        page 800.  Again, I think I need, in these circumstances,
     2        deal only with the second point, which is in the third
     3        paragraph in the middle of page 800.
     4
     5                  "As to the second point, whether or not
     6             each of these persons are qualified to make such
     7             statements on behalf of the company, I agree
     8             with my Lord that the person who said he was the
     9             depot manager was clearly qualified to make such
    10             statements, and, a fortiori, the representative
    11             who had in fact called as a result of having had
    12             the schedule and for the purpose of discussing
    13             the position with the inspector."
    14
    15        My Lord, I emphasise those words "with the inspector".
    16        Then, my Lord, the judgment of Edmund Davies J. (as he then
    17        was):
    18
    19                  "One is here dealing with the question
    20             whether there exists a prima facie case, whether
    21             the court can properly infer that Norman Jones
    22             was indeed the company's depot manager.  The
    23             inspector when calling at the depot would
    24             naturally seek out or have brought to him a
    25             responsible representative of the company, and
    26             he saw in fact a man who described himself as
    27             the depot manager.
    28                  For the reasons already stated by the
    29             Lord Chief Justice, in my judgment, that
    30             established a prima facie case that Norman Jones
    31             was indeed the depot manager.  Accordingly, it
    32             was not, in my judgment, infringe the general
    33             prohibition against the acceptance of hearsay
    34             evidence.
    35                  As to the authority of such a depot
    36             manager, I entertain no doubt that, again
    37             prima facie, he would have the authority to
    38             discuss the matter of the milk with the
    39             inspector of weights and measures."
    40
    41        Thus, my Lord, to draw the analogy which I promised with
    42        this case -- and it is only an example -- if the wages
    43        inspector were to call at a particular restaurant in order
    44        to take a running check on, for example, the hours worked
    45        by young people, and he spoke with a Manager and the
    46        Manager made an admission that -- it was some time in the
    47        past, but let us assume -- made an admission that the crew
    48        were habitually working longer hours than, under the law,
    49        they ought to do, and he made that admission to the wages
    50        inspector, then that admission would plainly, on the 
    51        principle of the Edwards v. Brookes case, be admissible in 
    52        the magistrates' court as evidence against the company, who 
    53        would be the defendant.
    54
    55        Not so, however, if a journalist wanders into a store, or a
    56        member of the public, and says: "What is the position about
    57        young people working excessive hours?"  The Manager would
    58        not have any authority, express or implied -- and express
    59        authority would have to be proved -- to make any kind of
    60        statement to a journalist or anybody else, apart from an

Prev Next Index