Day 120 - 03 May 95 - Page 44
1 wade in and sort it out.
2
3 MR. JUSTICE BELL: However, this may be, I am merely expressing
4 an anxiety that I am hearing suggestions about what a
5 McDonald's company can dictate to a franchisee, and I am
6 hearing Mr. Nicholson's answer about that, when in fact
7 probably all I have to do is read the franchise agreement,
8 and I can see what the legal obligations one way or another
9 are. Then, if there is evidence that whatever the
10 contractual arrangements were, McDonald's influence was
11 such that they could call the shots as it were, I will
12 consider that as well. But we are in a bit of a vacuum
13 without the franchise agreement, because if there was any
14 issue between this Irish corporation and McDonald's, the
15 first thing they would do is look at the franchise
16 agreement, I would have thought.
17
18 MR. RAMPTON: I do not know there is any evidence there ever was
19 any issue between them at all.
20
21 MR. JUSTICE BELL: No, but it seems to me, in the light of the
22 issue which has arisen, it is a discoverable document, and
23 if a copy ----
24
25 MR. RAMPTON: My Lord, I say, with respect, I do not know what
26 the issue is that is supposed to have arisen. The
27 Defendants are making assertions out of thin air. They
28 have no evidence, no basis for what they are putting to
29 Mr. Nicholson. All Mr. Nicholson has said is the
30 franchisee dealt with this particular dispute himself and
31 the Company did not have any input. There is no issue, so
32 far as I know; there is no evidence from the Defendants
33 side at all.
34
35 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I would have thought there might be a
36 presumption that a company in the position of McDonald's
37 could call the shots on a wide range of matters, save
38 insofar as the franchise agreement makes it clear that that
39 is entirely within the compass of the franchisee.
40
41 MR. RAMPTON: That is perfectly right as a matter of theory, but
42 that is not something that McDonald's ever have denied.
43 What is being suggested here is these two relatively
44 trivial incidents must have had some kind of input or
45 influence upon the UK company. (A) there is no reason to
46 suppose why it should not; and, (B) the witnesses denied
47 that it did. For that reason I cannot see what kind of an
48 issue there is that would give rise to discovery of the
49 franchisee agreement.
50
51 MS. STEEL: The point is whether they were in keeping, whether
52 the actions taken by the Ireland company were in keeping
53 with the UK company's attitude to trade unions, but
54 obviously they are.
55
56 MR. JUSTICE BELL: That may be another matter, you see, because
57 if you provide evidence that in relation to employees of
58 the Second Plaintiff there were sackings because of
59 interest in unions, then you can say what was happening in
60 Ireland was just the same, and that adds to the case which
