Day 149 - 06 Jul 95 - Page 22


     
     1        effect, an application by the Defendants to be allowed to
     2        give evidence to explain the headings in the leaflet, which
     3        is, in effect of course evidence of their meaning.
     4        Mr. Morris said -- and it is not quite verbatim, as I have
     5        not got the transcript; it is my own note -- the headings
     6        are not part of the text, and it is the text that matters.
     7
     8   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I am not concerned with that, because I am
     9        sure you are right about not calling evidence as to what a
    10        meaning is.  I am not blind; I can see that the "Mc" is
    11        written all the way through McDonald's trademark, all the
    12        way along the top.
    13
    14   MR. RAMPTON:  I was only going to add that, in relation to their
    15        application (which is in the future) about nutrition, not
    16        only should they read your Lordship's ruling and show it to
    17        any legal adviser they have on the amendment; they should
    18        also, of course, prompt the legal adviser to read
    19        The Chancellor and News Group (1995 2 WLR 450).
    20
    21   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Can I have the reference again?
    22
    23   MR. RAMPTON:  1995 2 WLR 450.
    24
    25        My Lord, the next one I wrote down was Mr. Secret.  I have
    26        told your Lordship that I do not object to his giving
    27        evidence in the slightest.
    28
    29        The next after that was Gary Davies.  My Lord, the pleading
    30        relating to him is number 67 in tab 7.  I invite
    31        your Lordship to look at that.
    32
    33   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes.
    34
    35   MR. RAMPTON:  Page 26, my Lord.  There is no witness statement
    36        on the Defendants' side, of course, from Mr. Gary Davies.
    37        That is all there is.  Mrs. Brinley-Codd has sworn that
    38        there are no documents relating to that allegation.
    39        Mr. Nicholson has twice sworn it:  once in an affidavit on
    40        discovery, and once in answer to interrogatories.  The
    41        matter to which he referred in evidence about Mr. Davies'
    42        dismissal, a report, was of course nothing to do with what
    43        is pleaded at all.  It was to do with what your Lordship
    44        may remember was a faintly comical reason for his
    45        dismissal, which was that he owned to up having defecated
    46        in the root beer tank.
    47
    48   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  What I thought was being said was that the
    49        suggestion was that that report might have referred to
    50        whether Gary Davies' original complaint was that he had 
    51        been put to working 90 hours a week.  There might well be 
    52        in the report something which said whether that was so or 
    53        not.  If that is so, someone ought to look at the report,
    54        ought they not, to see whether it does have anything which
    55        is relevant to article number 67.
    56
    57   MR. RAMPTON:  If they already have not, and if it still exists,
    58        then I quite agree, yes.
    59
    60   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I understand your point.  If all the report

Prev Next Index