Day 313 - 13 Dec 96 - Page 23


     
     1        Company did not have any documentation in relation to
     2        employment matters at Colchester.
     3
     4   MR. RAMPTON:  Here I think I ought to intervene because-----
     5
     6   MS. STEEL:  By way of example.
     7
     8   MR. RAMPTON:  This is a misrepresentation by the Defendants.
     9        The reason why there were not any Colchester documents
    10        disclosed originally was that their Colchester witnesses
    11        related to a period of Colchester preceding Mr. Coton.  As
    12        soon as Mr. Coton witness statement was made then the
    13        relevant discovery was made.
    14
    15   MS. STEEL:   I do not accept that, because the documents that
    16        got disclosed after Mr. Coton had made his witness
    17        statement actually related to quite a long period and there
    18        were documents relating to the period of Mr. Mark Davis's
    19        management of the store -- rap session notes, and all sorts
    20        of documents, performance reviews of managers and things
    21        like that.  Also, for example, the disclosure of the
    22        personal personnel records of Adrian Brett on the day that
    23        he had been due to give evidence, despite the fact that his
    24        statement had been tendered in July 1993.  So the
    25        Plaintiffs must have been sitting on his personnel records
    26        for the best part of three years.  It is clear from this
    27        that the Plaintiffs have possession of these document but
    28        have failed to disclose them at the relevant time.
    29
    30        I mean, I have not had time to go through all of the
    31        examples there are of this, but I am sure you will remember
    32        the number of times that we have complained about discovery
    33        throughout this case.  Basically, we have been unable to
    34        keep on to top of all the paperwork in the case.  We do not
    35        have a list compiled of which documents were disclosed on
    36        what date, and it would take me some time to compile such a
    37        list.  However, we have indicated, as I said on several
    38        occasions during the course of the trial, that we consider
    39        that documents should have been disclosed long before they
    40        were in fact disclosed, and also on this point it is
    41        noteworthy that many documents which appeared in the trial
    42        bundles at the start of the trial had never been disclosed
    43        prior to that time.
    44
    45        Additionally to that point, many of the nutrition documents
    46        had not been disclosed prior to the preparation of the
    47        trial bundles.  Then, after that time, there was a whole
    48        load of nutrition documents that were added to the trial
    49        bundles in the summer of 1994, after most of the Plaintiffs
    50        witnesses had given evidence on this issue, and those
    51        documents dated back as far as 1983.  So it can hardly be
    52        said that they did not have them in their possession and
    53        therefore could not have disclosed them previously.
    54
    55   MR. JUSTICE BELL: We will take our five minute break then.
    56
    57                          (Short adjournment)
    58
    59   MR. MORRIS:  Just on that last subject about discovery, another
    60        three examples.  Firstly, about the soya issue, where we

Prev Next Index