Day 164 - 26 Sep 95 - Page 38
1 region.
2
3 How one can reasonably infer from that that the Plaintiffs
4 in this case have in their custody, possession or power
5 relevant statements, I have to say, mistifies me; I do not
6 believe one can.
7
8 The second limb of my short submission on this question is
9 this: Plainly, this is not a proceeding which is anywhere
10 near its conclusion. What value, one wonders, would 50
11 statements, if they be written statements, by various
12 people about this affair have for the resolution of the
13 case? They would not be admissible. That is for sure.
14 They are not statements by people who, so far as I know,
15 are going to be witnesses in the case; one does not even
16 know whether their subjects matter is specifically, I mean.
17
18 Therefore, even if in principle they were in the power of
19 either of the Plaintiffs in this case and were arguably
20 thought to be of some marginal relevance to the case, your
21 Lordship, once again I submit, would have to ask the
22 question: Are they really necessary or would they really
23 be necessary for the fair disposal of this particular
24 issue, given that Monsieur Lamti and his colleague, and in
25 all probability two or three of the French franchisee's
26 people on my side, are going to come and give live evidence
27 in the court?
28
29 I do not desire to say anything more about that. It is
30 perhaps, understandably, another attempt by Mr. Morris to
31 see if there is actually rather more to be found out about
32 this case than he actually knows.
33
34 My Lord, then I think the only other thing I have to deal
35 with is the Bath question. I think I said a moment ago my
36 problem with this is that it is all far too general.
37 Mr. Logan, perhaps advisedly, I do not know, is very shy
38 about naming names. If he were to say, for example: "I am
39 aware that the clock cards of X, Y or Z were altered
40 illegitimately at a particular period" -- not a precise
41 date; I would not expect that -- "when I was working
42 there", and one notices that he says he was crew from 90 to
43 91 though I think he became something else after that, if
44 he were to say: "I know that so and so's performance
45 reviews were fudged or rushed or delayed", then one could,
46 perhaps, make a reasonable stab at disclosing the relevant
47 document.
48
49 The same goes for the weekly time sheets and the
50 schedules. Who, one asks, was given a schedule in order to
51 discipline him or her? No details are given by Mr. Logan.
52 There has been plenty of time for him to give details. The
53 long statement we now have is his second statement in the
54 case. I think that was served, at any rate, towards the
55 end of last term.
56
57 So far as the last one, C, is concerned, the incident
58 report forms regarding customer complaints, I have an
59 additional comment to make, my Lord, and that is this -- it
60 applies with some frequency to Mr. Morris' submissions in
