Day 188 - 15 Nov 95 - Page 20


     
     1        the PR woman said might be admissible.  But I would hear
     2        any argument in relation to that.
     3
     4        At the moment, when we come to that, I will draw the line
     5        where I have drawn it so far when we had this similar
     6        argument.  As far as I am concerned, anyone up to and
     7        including swing managers could not be treated as a
     8        representative of McDonald's -- the heart and mind of
     9        McDonald's, as it were -- but I am prepared, subject to any
    10        argument from Mr. Rampton, to say that anyone from salaried
    11        managers (which would include assistant managers up) could
    12        be; they could be treated, as it were, as the Company
    13        speaking.
    14
    15   MR. MORRIS:  We would argue that floor managers would be in that
    16        category, because they have the same responsibilities,
    17        (although in a more limited area) of salaried management;
    18        and many of them, indeed, carry out salaried managers'
    19        functions, which is just convenient for McDonald's to have
    20        them as floor managers, rather than salaried.
    21
    22   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  What you have to grapple with is this.  I am
    23        not suggesting any sinister motive against you; I do not
    24        know whether you have one or not.   But let me speak quite
    25        openly.  I do not really want to hear anything which
    26        I cannot take into account when I come to sit down and
    27        decide what goes into my judgment.  If you have it in mind,
    28        "Oh well, we would like it all to come out in open court",
    29        that is a total irrelevance as far as I am concerned.
    30
    31        From my point of view, there is absolutely no point in
    32        anything coming out in open court which I cannot
    33        legitimately take into account in due course when I come to
    34        think about what conclusions I might draw from the
    35        evidence.
    36
    37        What I will do is, I will take the five minute break.  Did
    38        you put brackets round -----
    39
    40   MR. MORRIS:  Yes.
    41
    42   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  When I come back, I will hear anything you
    43        have to say, and then I will give a short ruling on what
    44        can be read from the statement and referred to and what
    45        cannot.
    46
    47   MR. RAMPTON:  Before that happens, I would want to say something
    48        about the broad proposition which your Lordship advanced,
    49        which is -- I would respectfully say -- entirely
    50        unexceptionable, namely, that hearsay from somebody from 
    51        first assistant upwards could be evidence against 
    52        McDonald's, and it could only be by way of admission; but 
    53        of course it would depend on what the statement was,
    54        because not everything that an employee says, whatever
    55        position he holds in the Company, is capable of being
    56        characterised as an exception to the hearsay rule.
    57
    58   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  No.  The borderline between admissibility and
    59        weight to be attached may become rather blurred.
    60

Prev Next Index