Day 169 - 04 Oct 95 - Page 60


     
     1
     2   MR. MORRIS:  The same goes for the other person as well.
     3
     4   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I do not know because if she is not involved
     5        in the proceedings, then that may be a different situation.
     6
     7   MR. MORRIS:  She is still -- her statement still would stand.
     8
     9   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  You still have Civil Evidence Act grounds
    10        because she is not within the jurisdiction.  It is a matter
    11        for you.  I obviously cannot say at the moment that if
    12        their statements are read and no evidence is called to
    13        contradict it I will accept everything in there as proved
    14        because I do not know what arguments Mr. Rampton might
    15        bring up, but it is something which you ought to think
    16        about, that is all.  Where we go from the statements may be
    17        another matter because we have all the arguments about
    18        franchisees and so on which have already been canvassed to
    19        some extent, and I am reluctant to even appear to be giving
    20        you advice because if you say, "Well, the judge is inviting
    21        us to do that" and the wheel comes off, then I would not
    22        want to have you think that that is because we were
    23        misled.  But I think you have to -- might I suggest you
    24        give a little thought to the situation you are in with the
    25        French witnesses.
    26
    27   MR. RAMPTON:  One thing I do notice is that Mr. Lamti's
    28        statement is undated, which is odd.  It is signed but it is
    29        not dated.
    30
    31   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I do not think it matters.  It is a statement
    32        on which a perfectly valid Civil Evidence Act notice has
    33        been ----
    34
    35   MR. RAMPTON:  No, I am making a different point.  Your Lordship
    36        asked if I knew when my French witness started, whether it
    37        was before or after Lamti made his statement.  Since there
    38        is no date on Lamti's statement ----
    39
    40   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  No, but we know it must be sooner than it was
    41        served.
    42
    43   MR. MORRIS:  It was served literally days after it was received.
    44
    45   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  It does not matter.  We can identify when it
    46        was served and we know it must have been made at some date
    47        before then.
    48
    49   MR. MORRIS:  Yes.
    50 
    51   MS. STEEL:   Is there anything else on that? 
    52 
    53   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  No, there is nothing else I had in mind.  I
    54        have raised it now because, if you are going to see someone
    55        about meaning, you might turn it over with him or her at
    56        the same time.  That is all.  It seemed more useful for me
    57        to mention it now than after you have had a meeting with
    58        her.
    59
    60   MS. STEEL:   Right.  The judgment that you handed down

Prev Next Index