Day 175 - 18 Oct 95 - Page 16

     
     1
     2   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  3 at the bottom.  At the moment, I am
     3        inclined to think that it would be a new matter if in the
     4        second paragraph, for instance, you asked Mr. Whittle to
     5        give an example of that, and he then said:  "Well, I
     6        remember so and so, when he was Manager or she was Manager,
     7        saying:  'At such and such a time, clear McDonald's environment/index.html">litter
     8        from the middle, from the front of the store, go round this
     9        street and that street, but only bother with McDonald's
    10        environment/index.html">litter'".  It would equally be a new matter if you asked
    11        him in relation to the penultimate paragraph:  "Can you
    12        give an example?" and Mr. Whittle said:  "Well, I
    13        remember", and then he gives a name, "being sacked by", and
    14        then he gives a name, "for", and then he says what the
    15        alleged misdemeanour was.
    16
    17   MR. MORRIS:  I mean, whether or not it is a new matter, that is
    18        for the court to decide (and, obviously, we would make
    19        submissions about it), but I think our witnesses should not
    20        be inhibited from giving evidence of the truth.  They are
         witnesses of fact.  We have not really had any witnesses of
    22        fact, I do not believe, or only a couple so far.  We have
    23        had to listen to about 40 or 50 of McDonald's witness of
    24        fact who have spoken at great length and in detail and in
    25        generalities, many of which we had absolutely no notice of
    26        in advance.  Now we are beginning to start a whole series
    27        of witnesses of fact, then I do not think it is fair or
    28        legally justifiable that their evidence should be inhibited
    29        or restricted in a way which would mean they would not be
    30        able to bring out the relevant facts which are relevant to
    31        this case.
    32
    33        Obviously, we have argued about the restriction on new
    34        matters, and you have made a ruling on that, and we are
    35        trying to comply with that by getting supplementary notes
    36        or statements on new matters which are not matters which
    37        are touched upon or raised in the statements of our
    38        witnesses.
    39
    40        We have not got resources and we will not have the
         resources, and we will not be able -- it is impossible for
    42        us -- to go and see our witnesses and spend two days
    43        getting down everything, as, no doubt, the Plaintiffs'
    44        witnesses have done, even though they have still brought up
    45        a lot of new matters and details in their
    46        evidence-in-chief.
    47
    48        We are complying to the limit of our ability with the
    49        spirit of your judgment, but we have a right, a legal
    50        right, to ask our witnesses to explain what they are saying 
    51        in their statements.  I mean, some of our witnesses  ----- 
    52 
    53   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Just stop for a moment because I think you
    54        are repeating yourself in some respects.  Explanation may
    55        be one thing.  If you look at the notes, for instance, if
    56        you were to ask in relation to the first paragraph what
    57        Mr. Whittle meant by items being held past their holding
    58        time, and what he meant by time cards being replaced, in
    59        case that was not clear to you -- indeed, I am not sure it
    60        is entirely clear to me -- subject to anything Mr. Rampton