Day 171 - 11 Oct 95 - Page 27


     
     1
     2        If I can just say some general summing-up points.  I think
     3        the way the application has developed, that we have
     4        co-operated with the intent of limiting unnecessary volume
     5        of documents, while keeping enough documents so that it is
     6        a useful sample or relevant for the relevant times.  But in
     7        some ways this is bit of a unique situation, because this
     8        kind of detailed look into a store has not been achieved at
     9        any other store in the country and, therefore, it will help
    10        with all the evidence on employment issues to have these
    11        kind of documents available for the court to be able to
    12        peruse or study.
    13
    14   MR. JUSTICE BELL: What you say is that your witness in this case
    15        concentrates, in fact, on 1993 to 1994, which is fairly
    16        recent, so there is a good prospect of there being relevant
    17        documents there, which applies much less to some of the
    18        others -- for instance, in Colchester, we are nearly 10
    19        years ago -- and, apart from what Mr. Alimi kept, you are
    20        limited as to documentation.  You want to be able to argue
    21        -- whether you are successful or not -- that if you press
    22        home your claims with regard to Bath, I can draw inferences
    23        generally; and that is a point of argument, and I am not
    24        going to give any indication at this stage.  It is far too
    25        early to have formed a view, anyway.  But that is the way
    26        you put your case?
    27
    28   MR. MORRIS:  Yes.  Actually -- yes, OK.
    29
    30   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Mr. Rampton, I am sorry to take you out of
    31        your turn, but can you help me as to where we stand on the
    32        technicalities of the application, because the way we are
    33        doing the discovery applications as we go along in this
    34        case is rather unlike a normal discovery application which
    35        is done in chambers, that is to say, before the case
    36        actually starts, and it seems to me that what I am asked to
    37        decide is whether the documents in question appear to be
    38        relevant, first of all, whether they relate to an issue or
    39        matter, and then, even if they do, whether nevertheless
    40        I conclude that their production is not necessary for the
    41        fair and economic, fair disposal of the case or saving of
    42        cost.  Is that the correct approach?
    43
    44   MR. RAMPTON:  My Lord, I am sure it is the correct approach; and
    45        I do not believe the fact that we are not in chambers and
    46        the fact that it comes now has any technical objection
    47        implied in it.  It has this advantage, indeed, one might
    48        think -- I would submit that it did -- that your Lordship
    49        is now in a far better position to see the wood from the
    50        trees (which I respectfully suggest the Defendants do not 
    51        yet do) and so to decide the second part of that question 
    52        "is this really necessary" in a much more precise way than 
    53        you could ever do before the case had begun and
    54        your Lordship had not had literally months of evidence
    55        about employment.
    56
    57   MR. JUSTICE BELL: What I am actually doing if I make an order is
    58        saying that should be produced if it exists; no business of
    59        this and then -- we are compressing it all, are we not?  I
    60        mean, this may all be simple, but I just want to make sure

Prev Next Index