Day 005 - 04 Jul 94 - Page 80
1
MR. JUSTICE BELL: Are these statements and documents which
2 McDonald's have served where you want to use that
statement to support your case?
3
MR. MORRIS: A good example would be the statements we have
4 just read out really about the Newcastle restaurant. Are
they automatically evidence because they are under
5 McDonald's, or do we have to say that statement we want to
be a Civil Evidence Act notice?
6
MR. JUSTICE BELL: What I have have in front of me in
7 documentary form, subject to anything Mr. Rampton wants to
say, the document is in itself evidence of the fact that
8 it was said. It is not, until you put a Civil Evidence
Act notice on it, in however informal a way, evidence of
9 the truth of the matters contained in the statement.
10 MR. MORRIS: Right.
11 MR. JUSTICE BELL: So if you want, for instance, to use the
statement of the 20-year old assistant manager, I have
12 forgotten his name now, Lance Green, then you have to say:
We want that to be treated as subject to a Civil Evidence
13 Act notice. If there is any argument about that, then
I can deal with it.
14
MISS STEEL: Could I ask whether that -- if, for example, we
15 wanted to use the statement we asked Mr. Preston to read,
Good Food Nutrition and McDonald's, you know, should we
16 serve or should we say that we wanted to use that?
17 MR. RAMPTON: My Lord, that does not create a problem. It is a
McDonald's document. That is issued on behalf of the
18 plaintiffs. Therefore, according to the old rules of
common law that is any way admissible. It is not an
19 admission. Do not let defendants be misled by the word
"admission", but it is, prime facie, admissible of the
20 truth of the fact.
21 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Until such time as McDonald's calls some
evidence that did not reflect the facts and contents, for
22 instance, of their food, I would treat it certainly if you
ask me to, as being evidence of what was the contents of a
23 hamburger or a milk shake.
24 MISS STEEL: Right.
25 MR. MORRIS: Shall we formally say then that we would like the
statements relating to the Newcastle bomb hoax incident
26 that we quoted from to be considered as Civil Evidence
Act?
27
MR. JUSTICE BELL: What I suggest you do, that is after the
28 large break we are going to have in this case, because it
is employment. We are not going to get to that until
29 after the August break. Rather than commit yourself now
to saying, "We want a Civil Evidence Act notice on" and
30 then discoverying later there is something in one of the
statements you do not like, I suggest you at some stage in
