Day 115 - 06 Apr 95 - Page 55
1 speaking, the Defendants have to put this or these
2 statements into the mouth of the person who made the
3 document.
4
5 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Strictly speaking, they do, but if the fact
6 is there is, in fact, absolutely no issue but that there
7 was a proposal in the form of the first three sheets, that
8 Mr. Geoff Boule did write a letter in the terms of the
9 letter of 26th January 1993 on behalf of Sun Poultry --
10 I have not had time to read it all -- does the letter refer
11 to the conditions of employment which at the moment are
12 clipped to it?
13
14 MR. RAMPTON: My Lord, while I am cross-examining I cannot be
15 expected to read or when I am listening to a witness giving
16 evidence in-chief documents that are served on me at the
17 last possible moment.
18
19 MR. JUSTICE BELL: No, I appreciate that. The only point I am
20 making is that in the fullness of time I suggest that you
21 tell me whether there is any dispute that those are Sun
22 Valley Poultry Limited documents. If there is no dispute,
23 I can read them and form my own interpretation of them.
24 There is really no need for any kind of even informal Civil
25 Evidence Act notice or counter notice. If you come back
26 and say: "No, we do dispute that they are actually Sun
27 Valley documents", then we will have to look at the
28 technicalities.
29
30 MR. RAMPTON: My Lord, it is not technical. Maybe they are Sun
31 Valley documents, I have absolutely no idea at all.
32
33 MR. JUSTICE BELL: No, but you will be able to find out.
34
35 MR. RAMPTON: Some of them look as if they are because they have
36 "Sun Valley" headings on. I will be able to find out. If
37 I decide that I want the Defendants to call the witness to
38 explain the documents, then I shall serve a counter notice
39 and then they will have to do it.
40
41 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Will they? If it is agreed that a document
42 in the form of the first document dated 22nd October 1991
43 was prepared by or on behalf of Mr. Boule, albeit as a
44 statement of a proposal, and if it is agreed that a letter
45 was written by Mr. Boule in the terms of the letter of 26th
46 January 1993, and had conditions of employment for catchers
47 attached to it, for instance, why do the Defendants have to
48 call any evidence at all? If they do not call any
49 evidence, I may or may not be able to get much from the
50 documents themselves. How is it any different, for
51 instance, to letters which are put in written by one
52 American lawyer and another about a matter? I can go to
53 them for ---
54
55 MR. RAMPTON: Of course.
56
57 MR. JUSTICE BELL: -- information.
58
59 MR. RAMPTON: Of course, my Lord. There is, with respect, an
60 important distinction. If the letters are merely evidence
