Day 195 - 04 Dec 95 - Page 54


     
     1        at the end of the day, when I come to make decisions about
     2        this case, I have to pay attention to the evidence and only
     3        to the evidence and the evidence which is admissible on
     4        matters.
     5
     6        There are two reasons for me to raise it at this stage.
     7        The first is I do not want you to brush the matter aside
     8        and say that what Mr. Rampton has said is nonsense or, if
     9        he is challenging it, he has to prove that it was not said
    10        with McDonald's authority.  That is the first point.
    11
    12        The second point is it is important to raise it while
    13        Mr. Alimi is in the witness box in case you think you can
    14        take some advantage of him being here by asking some
    15        question which will strengthen your point.  It may well be
    16        that you cannot because you have asked Mr. Alimi and he
    17        said: "Well, I cannot remember.  It went on all the time
    18        and I cannot remember now who said it".  But I do not want
    19        you to be so confident you are right on the legal argument
    20        that you let the opportunity slip.  Do you understand?
    21
    22   MR. MORRIS:  I understand that.  Can I also make another point?
    23        You may think -- it is another shot over the bows, if you
    24        like, before we bring our case in response to Mr. Rampton
    25         -- actually the Public Relations Officer is probably the
    26        least person able to give the truth about the real policy
    27        of a company because, obviously, they are trained to put
    28        over the official party line.
    29
    30   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Just pause there, because whether or not that
    31        is a good point, the point Mr. Rampton was making is that
    32        if someone rings up Head Office and says:  "I want to talk
    33        to someone about fried eggs for breakfast", or something
    34        like that, and after a pause someone comes on to the phone
    35        and says:  "I am a member of McDonald's personal Public
    36        Relations Department", then I am not going to have very
    37        much trouble deciding that that person on that occasion has
    38        authority to speak.  Do you understand?
    39
    40   MR. MORRIS:  Yes, but whether they actually say the truth is
    41        another question.
    42
    43   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I know, but I am not concerned -- I am
    44        concerned with the truth at the end, but the point I am
    45        putting to you, I am not concerned with what is true and
    46        not true or what I should attach weight to or not attach
    47        weight to.  I am concerned with the fundamental question of
    48        whether the evidence is admissible against McDonald's at
    49        all.
    50 
    51   MS. STEEL:  Just one kind of preliminary point, and I think it 
    52        did come up in one of those cases referred to by 
    53        Mr. Rampton, although I have not read them in detail yet.
    54        Say, for example, a First Assistant or a Second Assistant
    55        is given the authority by the Company to run the shift and,
    56        therefore, he or she is acting on behalf of the Company,
    57        and so which they say to the crew during that shift is on
    58        behalf of the Company, because of the position of authority
    59        that they have been put in to, provided that it is relevant
    60        to the working practices.

Prev Next Index