Day 182 - 02 Nov 95 - Page 58
1 the IUF, and also an official report from the IUF signed by
2 Dan Gallin about the -- well, headed "union victory at
3 McDonald's in Norway".
4
5 MR. RAMPTON: My Lord, that may be so. Can I please intervene?
6 It is apparent from that document that this report of what
7 happened in Norway would not be admissible in the mouth of
8 Mr. Gallin, were he to give oral evidence. It is,
9 therefore, not admissible as part of his Civil Evidence
10 Act, because what he writes is: "We have been informed by
11 our affiliated Norway", etcetera, "below is the union's own
12 account of the dispute" -- that is to say, the HRAF's
13 account. So that must be excluded.
14
15 MR. MORRIS: The problem with Mr. Rampton is that -- I am not
16 going to read it all out, partly because we have dealt with
17 it with most of the evidence today -- that it may not be
18 evidence of the truth, but it is evidence of the fact that
19 we have been told this by one of our witnesses, and it is
20 therefore evidence of our reasonable belief, or whatever
21 the words are, to justify, in respect of whatever that area
22 covers in the case. So, it does not have to be read into
23 the record anyway.
24
25 MR. JUSTICE BELL: What I suggest -----
26
27 MR. MORRIS: But it is relevant.
28
29 MR. JUSTICE BELL: What I suggest you do is, I suggest that you
30 leave that unread and leave any of the other IUF documents
31 which you suggest -- although they may strictly not be
32 proved as such, but are referred to in the first
33 statement -- leave them unread and then, by all means, when
34 you come to give evidence (if you do), just by way of
35 comprehensive involvement, say (if it be so) that you took
36 the view that you could accept them as true, if that is
37 what your case is. But however it is, I can hear any
38 argument as to the relevance and admissibility in due
39 course, or what part they play in the case, but I would not
40 bother to read them now.
41
42 MR. MORRIS: I was not intending to; and, also, I think here we
43 are just talking about a general principle, because I am
44 sure that there is no problem with our belief at all. As a
45 general principle, since it has been challenged by the
46 Plaintiffs, I think we have a right to -----
47
48 MR. JUSTICE BELL: What I suggest you do, you have explained in
49 broad terms what part you say they play in the case, and
50 you can come back to that in due course.
51
52 MR. MORRIS: Yes. Of course, the Plaintiffs also have to
53 justify their reasonable beliefs about ---
54
55 MR. JUSTICE BELL: That is all to come.
56
57 MR. MORRIS: -- our counterclaim.
58
59 MR. JUSTICE BELL: You have read the second statement.
60
