Day 199 - 11 Dec 95 - Page 23
1 MR. JUSTICE BELL: You see, the point arises in relation to the
2 witness you have already called. It has more general
3 importance, but I only actually have to rule on it at the
4 moment in relation to the witness who has been called. You
5 say that just about everything which might be excluded, if
6 Mr. Rampton's argument was correct, you hope to adduce
7 under the provisions of the Civil Evidence Act, if
8 I understand it?
9
10 MR. MORRIS: Yes, we served a notice.
11
12 MS. STEEL: I suppose, in theory, we could read them out if
13 that was helpful?
14
15 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I do not know what the Plaintiffs' position
16 is on that yet.
17
18 MR. RAMPTON: I do not either. I am certainly not willing to
19 accept at the moment that would be a right thing to do.
20
21 MR. JUSTICE BELL: There is a difficulty about the Defendants'
22 argument on admissions; it may be partly a matter of form,
23 but it is not entirely that. I am not sure what my
24 entitlement is to start giving what are, in fact,
25 declaratory rulings on what I will consider inadmissible as
26 an admission by or on behalf of the First or Second
27 Plaintiff. Obviously, if I have to rule on whether a
28 statement made by an Assistant Manager or a Store Manager
29 is to be taken as a statement by or on behalf of the First
30 or Second Plaintiff, in a particular instance, I have to
31 set out the principle which I apply before applying it to
32 the particular evidence.
33
34 I want to hang it on some particular issue in relation to
35 the evidence, rather than a generality, if I can.
36
37 MR. RAMPTON: I think, my Lord, if I may respectively say so,
38 that must be right. Each of these questions has to be
39 decided on a case by case basis because each depends on its
40 own facts.
41
42 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I mean, the first time I come to rule on it,
43 I set out the principle, I then make a ruling in relation
44 to the particular issue which has arisen there. If and
45 when an issue arises with a future witness, the principle
46 does not change; it is applied to the issue which has then
47 newly arisen. But what I do not want to do is just give a
48 ruling on the principle without any application. I cannot
49 give a ruling in relation to Miss Lamb until I know what is
50 outstanding in her evidence. I cannot do that until I know
51 to what extent what people are said to have said to her is
52 admissible under the Civil Evidence Act. So I do not need
53 to see whether it is an admission made for and on behalf of
54 McDonald's.
55
56 MR. RAMPTON: I would ----
57
58 MR. JUSTICE BELL: What is the right way through it,
59 Mr. Rampton?
60
