Day 169 - 04 Oct 95 - Page 26
1 MR. JUSTICE BELL: How long do you anticipate he will be
2 in-chief? You told me before but I have forgotten.
3
4 MR. RAMPTON: I think about a day. It might be a little less,
5 it might be a little more, but certainly not more than a
6 day and a half is probably the best way to put it. It is
7 only going to be as long as that, if it is, because I shall
8 wants him to look at some documents.
9
10 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes. Ms. Steel and Mr. Morris, do you have
11 anything to say about that? That should leave you at least
12 six days to cross-examine which, I would have thought,
13 ought to be plenty. That is not to encourage you to take
14 all that time, but I cannot see there should be any
15 difficulty about that if you organise your
16 cross-examination well.
17
18 MR. MORRIS: We have nothing to say on the subject.
19
20 MR. JUSTICE BELL: No. I will say, unless there is good reason
21 to raise the matter again, put Mr. Cesca in on Tuesday,
22 12th.
23
24 MR. RAMPTON: I am grateful to your Lordship.
25
26 My Lord, France: Your Lordship will remember that the
27 dispute in relation to France concerns or concerned a
28 dispute between one of the French unions and a McDonald's
29 franchisee in Lyons. The name of the Company is Vilpaix.
30 The two Defendants' witnesses are or were -- perhaps both
31 -- employees of that franchisee or that franchised
32 company.
33
34 The President or Managing Director of that Company,
35 Vilpaix, was a man called Michel Antelinos. He is no
36 longer with that Company. He is now the Managing Director
37 of McDonald's French subsidiary.
38
39 In the course of Mr. Lamti's statement, in particular -- I
40 am not so much concerned about Mr. Villeneuve-Gallez's
41 allegations -- which, my Lord, is at tab 10 of the second
42 part, the Civil Evidence Act part of the Defendants' second
43 witness bundle, Mr. Lamti makes some very grave allegations
44 against Monsieur Antelinos to the effect that he attempted
45 bribery, intimidation and carried out victimisation of
46 Monsieur Lamti, apparently, according to Monsieur Lamti,
47 because Monsieur Lamti would not do what he was told, or
48 that is, perhaps, the thrust of it.
49
50 It had been our intention, my Lord, to call both Monsieur
51 Antelinos and his deputy, a Monsieur Touilloux, as
52 witnesses to refute the allegations made by Mr. Lamti in
53 particular. Since we formed that intention, Mr. Antelinos
54 has been advised by his French lawyer that neither he nor
55 Mr. Touilloux can give evidence in this country without
56 risking liability under French law.
57
58 My Lord, I probably do not need to take the matter any
59 further than that, but if your Lordship would like me to
60 explain why that is, as I understand it (and I am not an
