Day 195 - 04 Dec 95 - Page 52


     
     1   MR. RAMPTON:  My Lord, I think I have.
     2
     3   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  The reason is this, we will take the
     4        five-minute break here, although it is rather early,
     5        because as a result of what Mr. Morris and Ms. Steel said a
     6        little earlier, I think I ought to warn them about what the
     7        situation may be in case they fall into a trap.  We can
     8        take the five minutes now or later, so we will take it now
     9        and then carry on afterwards.
    10
    11        What concerns me is this.  It is probably two or three
    12        weeks ago now, I said something to the effect that I was
    13        minded to think that anyone who was a salaried Manager, if
    14        they said something, that was to be taken to be a statement
    15        on behalf of McDonald's.  Since then we have heard
    16        Mr. Rampton's argument, and I have to say that my statement
    17        that anyone who is a salaried Manager, which means anyone
    18        from Second Assistant upward, could be taken to be speaking
    19        on behalf of McDonald's, is inconsistent with some anyway
    20        of the authorities which Mr. Rampton quoted to me, and
    21        which I have not read or re-read myself.
    22
    23        I am not going to decide the matter until I have heard any
    24        contrary argument from you.  But you certainly should not
    25        work on the basis that in due course I am going to take
    26        anything said by a salaried Manager as said on behalf of
    27        McDonald's.  I have listen to the argument and decide what
    28        the proper principles are, and I will then have to apply
    29        whatever principles I consider are right to evidence where
    30        any witness has said:  "This Manager said this" or "That
    31        Manager said that".
    32
    33        I am not talking about evidence of what a member of
    34        management said where the evidence is directed at the fact
    35        that it was said rather than the truth of what was said.
    36        If I can try to illustrate that, in so far as there is
    37        evidence of someone, be it Second or First Assistant or
    38        whatever, saying to someone else, be it Floor Manager or
    39        whoever, words to the effect:  "Get rid of three staff; we
    40        are a bit slack at the moment", then you need not worry
    41        about the hearsay rule, because what is important there, if
    42        it is important at all, is the fact that it was said rather
    43        than the truth of what was said.
    44
    45        But, in so far as you want to rely on something said to one
    46        of your witnesses by someone who is a member of management,
    47        you are going in due course to have to establish that it
    48        was said, can I put it this way, on behalf of McDonald's
    49        and can be interpreted as such.  That is without prejudice
    50        to any argument you say and I am putting it very 
    51        generally.  That is the first point. 
    52 
    53        Do not just assume that because your witnesses has said a
    54        Second Assistant Manager, a First Assistant Manager, a
    55        Store Manager or even an Area Supervisor has said something
    56        that I can take that as being said on behalf of McDonald's
    57        and with their express or implicit or authority.
    58
    59        The second point is this, Mr. Morris said that if this
    60        matter is raised, it is for Mr. Rampton or McDonald's to

Prev Next Index