Day 195 - 04 Dec 95 - Page 52
1 MR. RAMPTON: My Lord, I think I have.
2
3 MR. JUSTICE BELL: The reason is this, we will take the
4 five-minute break here, although it is rather early,
5 because as a result of what Mr. Morris and Ms. Steel said a
6 little earlier, I think I ought to warn them about what the
7 situation may be in case they fall into a trap. We can
8 take the five minutes now or later, so we will take it now
9 and then carry on afterwards.
10
11 What concerns me is this. It is probably two or three
12 weeks ago now, I said something to the effect that I was
13 minded to think that anyone who was a salaried Manager, if
14 they said something, that was to be taken to be a statement
15 on behalf of McDonald's. Since then we have heard
16 Mr. Rampton's argument, and I have to say that my statement
17 that anyone who is a salaried Manager, which means anyone
18 from Second Assistant upward, could be taken to be speaking
19 on behalf of McDonald's, is inconsistent with some anyway
20 of the authorities which Mr. Rampton quoted to me, and
21 which I have not read or re-read myself.
22
23 I am not going to decide the matter until I have heard any
24 contrary argument from you. But you certainly should not
25 work on the basis that in due course I am going to take
26 anything said by a salaried Manager as said on behalf of
27 McDonald's. I have listen to the argument and decide what
28 the proper principles are, and I will then have to apply
29 whatever principles I consider are right to evidence where
30 any witness has said: "This Manager said this" or "That
31 Manager said that".
32
33 I am not talking about evidence of what a member of
34 management said where the evidence is directed at the fact
35 that it was said rather than the truth of what was said.
36 If I can try to illustrate that, in so far as there is
37 evidence of someone, be it Second or First Assistant or
38 whatever, saying to someone else, be it Floor Manager or
39 whoever, words to the effect: "Get rid of three staff; we
40 are a bit slack at the moment", then you need not worry
41 about the hearsay rule, because what is important there, if
42 it is important at all, is the fact that it was said rather
43 than the truth of what was said.
44
45 But, in so far as you want to rely on something said to one
46 of your witnesses by someone who is a member of management,
47 you are going in due course to have to establish that it
48 was said, can I put it this way, on behalf of McDonald's
49 and can be interpreted as such. That is without prejudice
50 to any argument you say and I am putting it very
51 generally. That is the first point.
52
53 Do not just assume that because your witnesses has said a
54 Second Assistant Manager, a First Assistant Manager, a
55 Store Manager or even an Area Supervisor has said something
56 that I can take that as being said on behalf of McDonald's
57 and with their express or implicit or authority.
58
59 The second point is this, Mr. Morris said that if this
60 matter is raised, it is for Mr. Rampton or McDonald's to
