Day 082 - 01 Feb 95 - Page 21


     
     1        That is why I tried to illustrate the point over, for
     2        instance, the plaintiff who suffered an injury and is suing
     3        the defendant and refuses to be medically examined by the
     4        defendant's expert.  He or she is actually party to the
     5        action and the court cannot order that the plaintiff
     6        undergoes a medical examination; what it can say is: "We
     7        will not let you proceed with your case", if it thinks it
     8        fair to make such an order, "unless you do let the
     9        defendant's doctor examine you".
    10
    11        If McDonald's refuse to let you look at their premises, you
    12        could say: "Well, do not let them go ahead with their
    13        action unless they do", and I would have to consider all
    14        the arguments for and against whether I made such an order,
    15        but we are not in that situation at all with an independent
    16        abattoir like Jarret.
    17
    18        The only thing I can offer to you is when you come back to
    19        any question of discovery, you may have an argument that if
    20        you had the facility to inspect somewhere like Jarret
    21        I might well decide that it was not essential for you to
    22        see documentation of a certain kind.  But in a situation
    23        where you have not been able to examine an abattoir, then
    24        maybe documentation is the only way you can get any kind of
    25        information about it.  Do you understand?
    26
    27   MR. MORRIS:  Yes.
    28
    29   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  But that is an argument in relation to
    30        discovery.  It may be a factor in dealing with discovery
    31        whether you have actually asked somewhere like Jarret
    32        yourself if you can go and look.  I am not offering any
    33        view on that; I am just saying it may be.
    34
    35   MS. STEEL:   While we are on this, we were also wondering about
    36        site visits.  Is it possible for the court to make site
    37        visits to certain places?  We were thinking about this in
    38        relation to the Kings Road dispute as well.  I went down
    39        there and I will be making a statement on there.  I walked
    40        the route and it is not possible to do it in the time
    41        stated by the Plaintiffs' witnesses in court.
    42
    43   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  When you say "site visits" do you mean me
    44        actually going -----
    45
    46   MS. STEEL:  Yes. I wanted to know what the position was.
    47
    48   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  The word they have given in court is "a view"
    49        and you are perfectly entitled to ask me to have a view.
    50        I can consider that and decide whether it is right I should 
    51        go or not.  We touched on it rather in relation to whether 
    52        I should go into a McDonald's.  That is what it is called. 
    53        You are not restricted on where it may be; I have to make a
    54        decision on whether I think it would really be helpful or
    55        not.  I will hear Mr. Rampton on it as well.
    56
    57        It may be you just have to think of what places you may
    58        want me to see.  The only view I ever went on in a murder
    59        case was not the scene of the alleged murder; it was the
    60        scene of the alleged alibi.  So you are not restricted.

Prev Next Index