Day 164 - 26 Sep 95 - Page 23
1 matter such as that.
2
3 I believe that when I made this application Mr. Rampton
4 agreed that it was something that might be relevant and
5 that they would look into it and see whether it was in
6 their possession. Therefore, a specific order was not
7 made, but it was directed that they should look into what
8 it was and making available a copy.
9
10 In their letter of 7th August the Plaintiffs have said that
11 they have been informed that, "the program is now only kept
12 on computer and no more copies in documentary form are
13 retained at Head Office. A search is being made at our
14 client's restaurants to see if, by chance, a copy has been
15 retained; if it has, it will be disclosed." So, plainly,
16 the Plaintiffs are accepting that it is a disclosable
17 document.
18
19 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Do you have any idea from any source of
20 information just what you think what formed the hard copy,
21 if it were printed out, what it would take, how long it is
22 and what it contains?
23
24 MR. RAMPTON: I do. My Lord, can I help?
25
26 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Shall I hear Mr. Rampton?
27
28 MS. STEEL: Yes.
29
30 MR. RAMPTON: I think I know what the position is. What used to
31 be called the management and crew scheduling programme is,
32 as Mrs. Brinley-Codd wrote on 7th August, now I think a
33 computer program. The product of the use of that program,
34 the program being a computer program, is a database stored
35 on the computer which contains the actual schedules for
36 every restaurant in the country for the current and the
37 preceding week. To print that out for the purposes of this
38 case would, we respectfully submit, be a wholly unnecessary
39 waste of time and money. It would take days and it would
40 be as high as a mountain, I dare say.
41
42 What I think that there is, because I think I have seen it,
43 is a document which may not have quite the same name as the
44 document that Ms. Steel applied for, but which does -- it
45 is quite a short document -- I think, having glanced at it,
46 tell people how to go about scheduling. That, I think, is
47 a written document.
48
49 If I am right about that (and I have only glanced at it),
50 then I agree that is something the Defendants should
51 certainly have. Unfortunately, I have not got it here.
52 Mrs. Brinley-Codd has it and she is not in London today.
53 But as soon as I have verified the accuracy, if it be
54 accurate, of what I have just told your Lordship, then we
55 will disclose it. I agree in principle the way in which
56 the Plaintiffs approached the questioning of scheduling is
57 a relevant issue in this case.
58
59 MS. STEEL: Obviously ----
60
