Day 199 - 11 Dec 95 - Page 24


     
     1   MR. RAMPTON:  Following your Lordship's logic, which I do, the
     2        right way through it is, first, for us to look as best we
     3        can at the statements -- Mark Ryan's I can read, Lynvale's
     4        is near illegible in places -- to see whether anything
     5        remains of the argument if those statements were admitted
     6        under the Civil Evidence Act.  It may be that it does; my
     7        recollection is that by no means all of what Lynvale or
     8        Mark Ryan says, perhaps, but certainly Lynvale says, would
     9        be admissible under the Civil Evidence Act either.  It may
    10        be that the same argument would have to be had there.  For
    11        that purpose, one imagines that Lynvale is in the witness
    12        box, and sees whether what he says he was told could be
    13        admissible against McDonald's on the basis of an
    14        admission.  I have not done that exercise yet.
    15        It may be it will occur, it may be it will not; even if it
    16        does, it is perhaps premature to put it on an agenda for
    17        Friday because we have to get past the first stage, which
    18        is to see whether, in fact, these two people are
    19        traceable or not, which I do not know the answer to that at
    20        the moment.  If they are, then there is no question of
    21        Civil Evidence Act evidence any way.  Maybe your Lordship
    22        could put either a line through or a square bracket
    23        around  -----
    24
    25   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Let me just talk to Ms. Steel and Mr. Morris
    26        about that.  I would go ahead and get your advice on it on
    27        Thursday because, whether or not we argue it on Friday, it
    28        is an issue which has got to come up sooner or later.  The
    29        sooner you get some advice, the better anyway because you
    30        will remember that one of the things which concerned me and
    31        I spoke out about a week ago was that my concern, if
    32        Mr. Rampton's argument was correct, I may have led you into
    33        a position of false security as to what could be used
    34        against McDonald's and what could not, so far as statements
    35        of Assistant Managers and Managers are concerned.
    36
    37        So, regardless what my ruling is in the future, you had
    38        better get your advice as soon as possible.  For all
    39        I know, it may be the same as Mr. Rampton's submissions, or
    40        it may raise a new and additional point which you can argue
    41        against what he said.  So, even if we do not hear the
    42        argument on Friday -- it seems to me it is premature to
    43        hear it on Friday because the question of Mr. Ryan's and
    44        Mr. Lynvale's Civil Evidence Act notices has to be enquired
    45        into first -- so at the moment it seems to me I will say
    46        that that is not to be argued on Friday.  But, to repeat
    47        myself yet again, I think you should get your advice on the
    48        question on Thursday.
    49
    50   MS. STEEL:   Yes, we will do.  Can I just say, in respect of 
    51        No. 5 on the proposed agenda, it is our intention to 
    52        respond to the Plaintiffs' letter that they wrote on 
    53        23rd November when we have a moment to do so which,
    54        obviously, we will do during the Yuletide vacation.
    55
    56        I would also like to bring up the point of the problem with
    57        the documents that went with Mr. Fairgrieve's statement.
    58        I raised this before and you told me to write to the
    59        Plaintiffs.  I wrote to them on 13th October and I have not
    60        had any response at all.

Prev Next Index