Day 146 - 03 Jul 95 - Page 07
1 related question which is what one does with what I call
2 the unfinished or outstanding witnesses, one could foresee
3 making a clean start on the Defendants' employment
4 witnesses on that day, 25th September. My Lord, in that
5 connection I must mention this, that, consistently with our
6 policy, we are not presently intending to bring anybody
7 from Canada to deal with Sarah Ingliss' evidence, although
8 we notice that on day 144 -- I have no idea which day that
9 is -- Mr. Morris said that Miss Ingliss was, in fact,
10 coming to court. If that was not hyperbole, as it
11 sometimes is, but was the actual unvarnished truth, then we
12 need to know that for certain because, if so, we may need
13 to call somebody from Canada. At the moment it is left as
14 a paper battle between witnesses who are all in Canada.
15 That person we would then probably call at the beginning of
16 September if we needed to.
17
18 The same, my Lord, would be true if an earlier observation
19 of Mr. Morris to a similar effect, which I treat with the
20 same degree of caution, that the two French witnesses from
21 Lyons -- I think one is called Lanti and the other is
22 called Villneuf Gaullais -- are also going to come to this
23 country and we need notice of that if they are.
24
25 My Lord, the only thing which bears on the scheduling --
26 and I am now going out of order as ever -- is that we have
27 prepared a list of the witnesses we believe to be
28 outstanding in relation to past topics, not present, but
29 future topics. We have split them up into part heard and
30 to be heard and into Plaintiffs and Defendants. It is
31 quite possible -- Mrs. Brinley-Codd and I did this this
32 morning -- that we have forgotten something; if so, we
33 apologise.
34
35 Mr. Preston, your Lordship will see, still has to finish
36 his cross-examination, so does Mr. Fairgrieve on the
37 Plaintiffs' side. I have put Dr. Arnott in brackets for a
38 number of obvious reasons, partly because the Defendants
39 have some kind of application to make in relation to
40 nutrition and partly because, in any event, whatever
41 happens to that application, it may not be necessary to
42 recall Dr. Arnott, then, for the Defendants, Professor
43 Crawford. It is likely, I would have said, my Lord, that
44 whatever happens to the Defendants' application, or
45 virtually whatever happens, Professor Crawford will have to
46 come back.
47
48 Ms. Hovi is another obvious one to be dealt with later on
49 today or tomorrow by way of an application from me to call
50 rebuttal evidence. Then the remaining ones to be heard are
51 Mr. Bateman, who is our paper making expert, Mr. Bone, who
52 is from Jarretts who answers Ms. Hovi's oral evidence, and
53 then there is the Defendants' environmental witness Anne
54 Link, and we think it is right that Mr. Bateman and Ms.
55 Link go hand-in-hand.
56
57 My Lord, I have no strong feelings at all about how those
58 witnesses should be cleared up or when, and I would leave
59 that entirely to your Lordship. Obviously, we would need
60 notice so far as the non-McDonald's people are concerned
