Day 149 - 06 Jul 95 - Page 04

     
     1        position.
     2
     3        As far as we are concerned, that is the Plaintiffs'
     4        problem.  They could have called a witness from Jarretts
     5        last December.  In fact, I recall that when they announced
     6        they would be calling an expert, we objected and said that
     7        it should have been somebody from the company.
     8
     9        I am also concerned that documents have been destroyed
    10        concerning the period when Ms. Hovi was working at
    11        Jarretts.  In his statement, Mr. Bone says they destroyed
    12        some because the Plaintiffs' solicitors did not come to
    13        visit them until, I think it was April 18th or something
    14        like that; and a year had passed since she had been working
    15        there, so they had routinely destroyed some of the
    16        documents.
    17
    18        Her statement was served in December last year.  They
    19        should have been preserving all relevant documents, and
    20        they should have had that advice as well to preserve all
         relevant documents.
    22
    23   MR. RAMPTON:  No, my Lord, that is not correct.  They are not
    24        parties to the action.
    25
    26   MS. STEEL:   I am going to ignore that comment.  They should
    27        still be advised to preserve all relevant documents.
    28        Otherwise, they should not be able to rely on only the
    29        documents that they have decided to keep.
    30
    31        As I say, the statement of Ms. Hovi was served in
    32        December.  We had other documents disclosed before
    33        Mr. Bennett came in the witness box, and they should have
    34        disclosed all the relevant documents at the time if they
    35        were wanting to rely on them.
    36
    37        I find the whole business extremely suspicious.  As far as
    38        I can see, Jarretts -- the Plaintiffs have tried to avoid
    39        calling any direct evidence about what goes on at Jarretts,
    40        and have tried to avoid giving full records and providing
         accurate information in the shape of an accurate plan, for
    42        example; and they should not be allowed to do so now in an
    43        attempt to recover the damage that was done to the Company
    44        by the evidence of Ms. Hovi.
    45
    46        Our main objection to Mr. Bone being allowed to give
    47        evidence is that it is a complete abuse of process to avoid
    48        calling a witness at the relevant time and avoid making
    49        full discovery and to disclose a completely incorrect plan,
    50        and then change their mind and ask to do it after you have 
    51        been damaged by the evidence of the other side (sic). 
    52 
    53        On the final point about if Mr. Bone is going to be allowed
    54        to give evidence and Ms. Hovi is to come back, then the
    55        normal order of witnesses should follow and the Plaintiffs'
    56        witness should come first, with Ms. Hovi completing her
    57        evidence after Mr. Bone has left the witness box.
    58
    59        Obviously, we are entitled for her to be able to deal with
    60        what Mr. Bone has said in the witness box and, also, it may