Day 086 - 09 Feb 95 - Page 27


     
     1        because the parties want to work together to ---
     2        A.  Yes.
     3
     4   Q.   -- achieve a satisfactory result.
     5
     6   MR. MORRIS:  So, in other words, there may be a provision for
     7        challenging it or countering it or something, but the
     8        Notice itself is compulsory?
     9        A.  No, I do not believe it is.  If we open a restaurant
    10        very often -- in a new area, the Environmental Health
    11        Officer would come round and see things about our system
    12        that he does not perhaps understand and raise things or put
    13        it on an Improvement Notice.
    14
    15   Q.   This is not about something that they do not understand, is
    16        it?  This is about something-----
    17
    18   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Mr. Morris, does it really matter whether it
    19        is absolutely essential?  He obviously thought it was a
    20        good idea for the safety of people in that McDonald's that
    21        this be done?
    22        A.  That is right, yes.
    23
    24   MR. MORRIS:  I would say it is more than a good idea because the
    25        following one talks about a suggestion (which is obviously
    26        a good idea) and the previous one is an Improvement Notice.
    27
    28   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes, but your point is that things were not
    29        as satisfactory as they should have been up until then.
    30
    31   MR. MORRIS (To the witness):  So, having heard all the evidence
    32        and thought about the issue in more depth, and it is fair
    33        to say you were not involved at the time -----
    34
    35   MR. RAMPTON:  No, my Lord, he has not heard all the evidence
    36        about any matter.
    37
    38   MR. MORRIS:  No, the evidence that he has hard.
    39
    40   MR. RAMPTON:  That is a half-baked, partial account, for
    41        heaven's sake.
    42
    43   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  No, you cannot ask -----
    44
    45   MR. MORRIS:  No, I am talking about the attitude of
    46        Mr. McShirkie, yes, that McDonald's was in contravention of
    47        the Electricity Regulations at Work Act, and that there was
    48        a serious risk of personal injury from not having those
    49        devices.  (To the witness):  Do you now accept that, in
    50        fact, McDonald's should be man enough, if you like, brave 
    51        enough, to accept that they have been at fault, they were 
    52        partially at fault, at least, for that accident? 
    53        A.  I am really uneasy in this.  I am in a hypothetical
    54        situation.
    55
    56   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  No, I do not think it is the right question
    57        to ask him and it is for me to answer in any event.  He has
    58        only been shown part of the evidence in the matter.  He has
    59        not heard the witnesses give evidence.  He has not heard
    60        them cross-examined.  You lose nothing by him not answering

Prev Next Index