Day 171 - 11 Oct 95 - Page 36


     
     1        been identified, whether by Mr. Logan in his original
     2        statement or in his handwritten note, then by all means.
     3
     4   MR. JUSTICE BELL: That is how I read it; and one could, if
     5        necessary, make a list scheduling performance reviews.
     6
     7   MR. RAMPTON:  I said that I would faithfully follow Mr. Logan's
     8        two statements -- by his second statement, I mean the
     9        questionnaire which he answered for the Department of
    10        Employment -- and the handwritten note as my guide to
    11        relevance; and we will do that.  We are not willing to go
    12        beyond that, because that would be giving away a fishing
    13        application, which I am not willing to do.
    14
    15        My Lord, 4 and 5; here, I do have an objection of
    16        principle.  As I said to your Lordship earlier, we have not
    17        found any store audit for either of those years which gives
    18        an F for performance reviews which is the specific
    19        allegation which is the one I am bound to respond to by way
    20        of discovery, if it should be a good one.  That does not
    21        exist.  It is not, in our submission, sufficient for the
    22        Defendants to say "critical of practices generally".  That
    23        might include virtually anything.  It might include, for
    24        example, an irregularity of environment/index.html">litter patrol, for all I know.
    25        Before any discovery can be given or should be given in
    26        relation to any criticism from Head Office, the precise
    27        criticism, the precise practice criticised must be
    28        particularised, because otherwise the door is open to the
    29        most enormous trawl through a case which Mr. Logan in his
    30        own written statements (in the plural) does not make or
    31        does not seek to make.  That is not permissible, and the
    32        Court of Appeal did not suggest that it was.
    33
    34   MR. JUSTICE BELL: I had not necessarily put it in precise terms
    35        in my mind, but a factor of this case is that, on behalf of
    36        your clients, they have made the decision not just to beat
    37        off specific allegations which have been made by the
    38        Defendants in justification, but to -- I am not meaning to
    39        be facetious -- that, essentially, all is well in the house
    40        of McDonald's; and part of that has been to say: "We do
    41        regular store audits and we would discover if anything was
    42        amiss at a particular store."  I invite you to tell me if I
    43        am wrong, but a feature in my consideration of this
    44        application is that Bath might be a better place than
    45        almost anywhere else to test these things in so far as you
    46        can by discovery.  The answer could go either way.  I do
    47        not know whether, if one saw the store record audits, they
    48        would help your clients' case or help the Defendants.  It
    49        might show that there were regular store audits, that, as
    50        one would expect in any ordinary world, some things are not 
    51        up to snuff but, by and large, the performance is pretty 
    52        good, in which case you would say that is relevant; or it 
    53        might show that fundamental failures were discovered, in
    54        which case Mr. Morris would say that is helpful and
    55        relevant.  Am I wrong in approaching it in that way?
    56
    57   MR. RAMPTON:  My Lord, put like that, no.  I have to say, no,
    58        your Lordship is not wrong.  One of the features of the
    59        case -- at least, I believe to be, trying as I ever do to
    60        see the wood fro the trees -- I believe is that what you do

Prev Next Index