Day 190 - 23 Nov 95 - Page 21


     
     1        questions which you have to ask in relation to
     2        admissibility is whether the person making the statement
     3        has authority to make it on behalf of his employer, the
     4        company; and whether you have authority to make the
     5        statement is a question of fact just as much in the issue
     6        of admissibility of the statement as evidence as it is in
     7        relation to deciding whether the company can be estopped.
     8        The authority to make the statement is on a route to both;
     9        and that is the only reason, I think, Mr. Rampton is
    10        quoting this.
    11
    12   MR. MORRIS:  Yes.  But these are about authority to make
    13        statements which are binding on a company.
    14
    15   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  No, just authority to make the statements,
    16        which are then taken to be the statements of the company,
    17        whether as evidence against the company, i.e. admission, or
    18        the basis for an estoppel.
    19
    20        You think about it, and if you think at the end of the day
    21        you have a good point on that, I am not going to put you to
    22        arguing -- if you tell me, at the end of Mr. Rampton's
    23        argument, that you want to go away and think about all
    24        this, you certainly shall have time to do so.
    25
    26   MR. MORRIS:  Can I just go on, to sort of save time, if
    27        Mr. Rampton is going to go through references which may not
    28        be relevant -----
    29
    30   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I do not think one can say that of this.
    31        Where it takes us is a matter for argument.
    32
    33   MR. RAMPTON:  Your Lordship has conceived my point correctly.
    34        Mr. Morris has not.  I will leave it there for the moment.
    35
    36        The next one is a case called The Prinses Juliana.
    37        My Lord, it is interesting, not so much for its facts
    38        because, on the facts -- it was a shipping case -- the
    39        pilot whose out-of-court statement was sought to be adduced
    40        by the plaintiffs in that case was not, in fact, at the
    41        time employed by the defendants; and so it would have
    42        failed anyway.  But there are some perhaps useful
    43        expressions of principle on page 143 of the report which is
    44        [1936] Probate, 139.
    45
    46        At 143, in the judgment of Bucknill J., starting at the
    47        top:
    48
    49             "They" -- that is the solicitors for the
    50             plaintiffs -- "subpoenaed the Trinity House 
    51             authorities to produce the report, and it was 
    52             brought into Court yesterday in a sealed 
    53             envelope.  The question now is whether that
    54             report is admissible as evidence on behalf of
    55             the plaintiffs.
    56                  Obviously, if justice to be administered
    57             properly, the greatest precaution must be taken
    58             to see that the best evidence available is
    59             presented to the Court and that its judgment is
    60             grounded on reliable evidence.  The chief

Prev Next Index