Day 241 - 26 Apr 96 - Page 15
1 McDonald's to be". Firstly, it is irrelevant what she says
2 they expressed it to be. The only purpose of bringing this
3 witness can be to try to assert that everything, as far as
4 McDonald's record goes, was hunky-dorey with the Wages
5 Inspectorate because otherwise there is no point in calling
6 this evidence.
7
8 Obviously, Mr. Mills is not going to be there, so we cannot
9 ask him questions about, if that was what he said, why he
10 felt it was satisfactory, what exactly he had examined and
11 all kinds of related matters to that.
12
13 The statements in relation to Mr. Duncan -----
14
15 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Miss Trout, do you mean -- I assume it is a
16 woman.
17
18 MR. RAMPTON: Yes, my Lord, it is an Irish name, Grainne Trout.
19 It is an Irish name, I think, Grainne.
20
21 MR. JUSTICE BELL: It is Ms. Trout?
22
23 MR. RAMPTON: Yes, she is a lady, a girl, female.
24
25 MR. JUSTICE BELL: You are objecting to -- what I need to know
26 is whether you are objecting. You are objecting to Miss
27 Pearce. Are you?
28
29 MS. STEEL: Because she is hearsay; she is basically hearsay.
30
31 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Are you objecting to Miss Trout? I only
32 need to hear from you if you are actually objecting and
33 I only need to hear from Mr. Rampton if he is objecting to
34 any of the new witnesses who you have served.
35
36 MS. STEEL: Yes. I just make the point that Mr. Duncan's
37 statement to whom Miss Trout is responding was made in June
38 1995.
39
40 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I do need to know whether you are objecting
41 or not you see.
42
43 MR. MORRIS: We are not formally objecting. We are just
44 pointing it out.
45
46 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Are you formally objecting to Miss Pearce?
47
48 MS. STEEL: Formally objecting to Miss Pearce yes because her
49 evidence is hearsay.
50
51 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Right.
52
53 MS. STEEL: The statement concerning Norway, I am not -- I do
54 not know what the position is but we had a witness whose
55 statement was served a long time ago on Norway. McDonald's
56 had served a statement in response and they chose not to
57 call that evidence. They have now served a statement of
58 somebody new, after our witness has given evidence and it
59 just concerns me, I mean because that could go on forever
60 if they are allowed to keep chopping and changing, when
