Day 190 - 23 Nov 95 - Page 07


     
     1   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  At some stage, either today or tomorrow,
     2        I would like the question of the transcripts of the
     3        Canadian witnesses' evidence to be raised because, as
     4        I understand it, Mr. Morris or Ms. Steel has written asking
     5        if they can have the transcripts of Miss Iurilla's and
     6        Miss Wetli's evidence before the 21 days, which they are
     7        waiting for at the moment.
     8
     9   MR. RAMPTON:  Yes.
    10
    11   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Has that been dealt with?
    12
    13   MR. MORRIS:  That has been agreed.
    14
    15   MR. RAMPTON:  We have said "yes" in this one instance.
    16
    17   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Very well.  Thank you very much.
    18
    19   MR. RAMPTON:  What I have done is to copy some pages from
    20        Phipson on Evidence, some pages from Bowstead on Agency,
    21        and six (but only six, although there are more than six) of
    22        the authorities referred to in those text books, all of
    23        which are mercifully quite short, which illustrate the
    24        proposition, which I would submit is the right proposition,
    25        of law in different ways both for and against the admission
    26        of the evidence -- or the statement, I should say.
    27
    28        My Lord, the proposition, if I may put it shortly, is this,
    29        that hearsay evidence or a hearsay account or report given
    30        by a witness of an out-of-court statement made by the
    31        employee or agent of a company is only admissible if it can
    32        be characterised as an admission by the company.  Whether
    33        that is so will depend upon whether the servant or employee
    34        was expressly authorised to make that statement or, if not,
    35        whether the making of statements of that kind -- and I will
    36        say in a moment what I mean by statements of that kind --
    37        was within the general or implied scope of the employee's
    38        authority.
    39
    40        My Lord, as we understand the authorities, the question
    41        whether such an implied authority exists -- obviously, it
    42        is different in a case of express authority -- depends
    43        first of all on the nature of the statement made, the
    44        position in the company held by the employee who made the
    45        statement, the identity of the person to whom the statement
    46        was made, and the occasion on which or the circumstances in
    47        which the statement was made.
    48
    49        As your Lordship will see from the authorities, the
    50        conditions in which the court will hold that an employee -- 
    51        even extending to a chairman or secretary of a company -- 
    52        has such an implied authority to make statements by way of 
    53        admission on behalf of the company are extremely
    54        restricted.
    55
    56        Can I then start with the passages from Phipson which are
    57        in divider 1 of that small bundle?  I start at
    58        paragraph 24-01, "Admissions Generally".
    59
    60

Prev Next Index