Day 199 - 11 Dec 95 - Page 24
1 MR. RAMPTON: Following your Lordship's logic, which I do, the
2 right way through it is, first, for us to look as best we
3 can at the statements -- Mark Ryan's I can read, Lynvale's
4 is near illegible in places -- to see whether anything
5 remains of the argument if those statements were admitted
6 under the Civil Evidence Act. It may be that it does; my
7 recollection is that by no means all of what Lynvale or
8 Mark Ryan says, perhaps, but certainly Lynvale says, would
9 be admissible under the Civil Evidence Act either. It may
10 be that the same argument would have to be had there. For
11 that purpose, one imagines that Lynvale is in the witness
12 box, and sees whether what he says he was told could be
13 admissible against McDonald's on the basis of an
14 admission. I have not done that exercise yet.
15 It may be it will occur, it may be it will not; even if it
16 does, it is perhaps premature to put it on an agenda for
17 Friday because we have to get past the first stage, which
18 is to see whether, in fact, these two people are
19 traceable or not, which I do not know the answer to that at
20 the moment. If they are, then there is no question of
21 Civil Evidence Act evidence any way. Maybe your Lordship
22 could put either a line through or a square bracket
23 around -----
24
25 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Let me just talk to Ms. Steel and Mr. Morris
26 about that. I would go ahead and get your advice on it on
27 Thursday because, whether or not we argue it on Friday, it
28 is an issue which has got to come up sooner or later. The
29 sooner you get some advice, the better anyway because you
30 will remember that one of the things which concerned me and
31 I spoke out about a week ago was that my concern, if
32 Mr. Rampton's argument was correct, I may have led you into
33 a position of false security as to what could be used
34 against McDonald's and what could not, so far as statements
35 of Assistant Managers and Managers are concerned.
36
37 So, regardless what my ruling is in the future, you had
38 better get your advice as soon as possible. For all
39 I know, it may be the same as Mr. Rampton's submissions, or
40 it may raise a new and additional point which you can argue
41 against what he said. So, even if we do not hear the
42 argument on Friday -- it seems to me it is premature to
43 hear it on Friday because the question of Mr. Ryan's and
44 Mr. Lynvale's Civil Evidence Act notices has to be enquired
45 into first -- so at the moment it seems to me I will say
46 that that is not to be argued on Friday. But, to repeat
47 myself yet again, I think you should get your advice on the
48 question on Thursday.
49
50 MS. STEEL: Yes, we will do. Can I just say, in respect of
51 No. 5 on the proposed agenda, it is our intention to
52 respond to the Plaintiffs' letter that they wrote on
53 23rd November when we have a moment to do so which,
54 obviously, we will do during the Yuletide vacation.
55
56 I would also like to bring up the point of the problem with
57 the documents that went with Mr. Fairgrieve's statement.
58 I raised this before and you told me to write to the
59 Plaintiffs. I wrote to them on 13th October and I have not
60 had any response at all.
