Day 190 - 23 Nov 95 - Page 26
1 page 800. Again, I think I need, in these circumstances,
2 deal only with the second point, which is in the third
3 paragraph in the middle of page 800.
4
5 "As to the second point, whether or not
6 each of these persons are qualified to make such
7 statements on behalf of the company, I agree
8 with my Lord that the person who said he was the
9 depot manager was clearly qualified to make such
10 statements, and, a fortiori, the representative
11 who had in fact called as a result of having had
12 the schedule and for the purpose of discussing
13 the position with the inspector."
14
15 My Lord, I emphasise those words "with the inspector".
16 Then, my Lord, the judgment of Edmund Davies J. (as he then
17 was):
18
19 "One is here dealing with the question
20 whether there exists a prima facie case, whether
21 the court can properly infer that Norman Jones
22 was indeed the company's depot manager. The
23 inspector when calling at the depot would
24 naturally seek out or have brought to him a
25 responsible representative of the company, and
26 he saw in fact a man who described himself as
27 the depot manager.
28 For the reasons already stated by the
29 Lord Chief Justice, in my judgment, that
30 established a prima facie case that Norman Jones
31 was indeed the depot manager. Accordingly, it
32 was not, in my judgment, infringe the general
33 prohibition against the acceptance of hearsay
34 evidence.
35 As to the authority of such a depot
36 manager, I entertain no doubt that, again
37 prima facie, he would have the authority to
38 discuss the matter of the milk with the
39 inspector of weights and measures."
40
41 Thus, my Lord, to draw the analogy which I promised with
42 this case -- and it is only an example -- if the wages
43 inspector were to call at a particular restaurant in order
44 to take a running check on, for example, the hours worked
45 by young people, and he spoke with a Manager and the
46 Manager made an admission that -- it was some time in the
47 past, but let us assume -- made an admission that the crew
48 were habitually working longer hours than, under the law,
49 they ought to do, and he made that admission to the wages
50 inspector, then that admission would plainly, on the
51 principle of the Edwards v. Brookes case, be admissible in
52 the magistrates' court as evidence against the company, who
53 would be the defendant.
54
55 Not so, however, if a journalist wanders into a store, or a
56 member of the public, and says: "What is the position about
57 young people working excessive hours?" The Manager would
58 not have any authority, express or implied -- and express
59 authority would have to be proved -- to make any kind of
60 statement to a journalist or anybody else, apart from an
