Day 198 - 08 Dec 95 - Page 32
1
2 MR. MORRIS: Yes, we have actually restricted ourselves from
3 asking any of our witnesses about other stores regarding
4 Colchester, so that would be a can of worms if it were to
5 be opened up to other stores.
6
7 MR. JUSTICE BELL: That is your only objection, is it?
8
9 MR. MORRIS: That is our only fundamental objection. We do not
10 like the way Mr. Rampton has introduced the subject, and we
11 do feel that until the request for further and better
12 particulars that we were strongly advised to get or they
13 would oppose Mr. Coton coming, even though, apparently now,
14 they are saying that if someone is an important witness
15 then they should come, that the whole opening up of this
16 has been precisely because they asked for further and
17 better particulars as a way of getting names from people
18 higher up and practices identified so that they can call
19 another half a dozen witnesses to try and recover what had
20 happened with us, our witnesses coming to tell what
21 happened in the Colchester store.
22
23 So, I do feel that context is important but, having said
24 that, this is a development which it is clear to us the
25 Plaintiffs have engineered. We do not have any objections.
26
27 MR. JUSTICE BELL: No.
28
29 MR. MORRIS: Apart from the Clacton or any other stores.
30
31 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I am afraid that I cannot accept the
32 situation that it has been engineered by the First or
33 Second Plaintiff, or those who act on their behalf. I am
34 not making criticism of anyone in this case.
35
36 The fact is that when it came to light at the end of
37 October that Mr. Coton could and was willing to give
38 evidence, the case was extended in two matters of potential
39 significance, in my judgment. The first was the allegation
40 of docking hours of crew which had not appeared at all, and
41 the second was a very considerable expansion in the
42 Defendants' case of intense and continuing pressure on
43 management which might lead to pairing of costs in undue
44 ways.
45
46 The Defendants have not, in fact, objected to Mr. Rampton
47 calling the further evidence which he summarised, and which
48 I do not propose to repeat now, and it seems to me only
49 right and fair that he should be allowed to call that
50 evidence.
51
52 The Defendants have taken one point of objection. They say
53 that to allow Mr. Harney to give evidence of the pressure,
54 or lack of it, he was under when he was Store Manager at
55 Clacton would be unfair because Mr. Gibney's evidence was
56 kept to Colchester as a result of an indication, if not a
57 ruling, which I actually made.
58
59 It seems to me that the question of continuing pressure is
60 relevant to the issues which have arisen in this case.
