Day 121 - 04 May 95 - Page 33
1
2 MR. RAMPTON: I do not know. I will look them out.
3
4 THE WITNESS: I answered the questions that were raised in the
5 pleading.
6
7 MR. MORRIS: Yes, but the point is that we have alleged that the
8 hours worked by Mr. Davis were unacceptable, which was an
9 underlying cause of his rather extreme protest.
10
11 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes, look, I have said before, I do not want
12 to deal with applications for discovery "on the hoof". You
13 have to make a list. I will hear what Mr. Rampton wishes
14 to say in a moment but, whatever the answer, Mr. Rampton,
15 is, by all means say: "Well, we may make an application
16 for specific discovery in relation to some document which
17 has been mentioned" so everyone in court has just
18 registered it. But I am not going to deal with them as
19 they come up like that. Get a batch of them together and
20 if there is still an issue, we will have an argument and I
21 will rule on sets of them at a time. Yes, Mr. Rampton?
22
23 MR. RAMPTON: I just point out, I really do wish that before Mr.
24 Morris makes "on the hoof" applications for discovery, he
25 will look at the previous papers, because this application
26 goes back, I do not know, Mrs. Brinley-Codd swore an
27 affidavit on 7th April 1994. At page 7, she said: "Gary
28 Davis", passage 20 at that time ---
29
30 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes.
31
32 MR. RAMPTON: -- "The Second plaintiffs to search their records
33 to confirm that no documents exist. Any documents which
34 may have existed will have been destroyed". I am going to
35 go through this and find whether or not at some stage that
36 is confirmed by Mr. Nicholson; I dare say it is, because
37 that is what tends to happen.
38
39 THE WITNESS: I think what I was asked to do was to have kept
40 copies of -----
41
42 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I do not want to hear any more about it at
43 the moment. If an application in relation to discovery is
44 persisted in, I will hear argument and rule on it in due
45 course. Mr. Rampton has heard what Mr. Morris has said,
46 Mr. Morris has heard Mr. Rampton's answers. I will wait
47 and see if it appears on the list in due course.
48
49 MR. MORRIS: Yes. I was not very impressed by Mr. Rampton's
50 submission but I will not go into it. (To the witness): I
51 will ask you completely different matters now: It has been
52 admitted that Bury Magistrates Court fined McDonald's in
53 May 1991 £2,250 for having an unguarded rubbish compactor
54 which resulted in an employee suffering an injury, a
55 trapped arm, and for failing to report this accident in the
56 specified period. Was this in the time when you were still
57 Head of Personnel, May 1991?
58 A. Yes.
59
60 Q. Yes. What disciplinary action did the Company take against
