Day 175 - 18 Oct 95 - Page 17
1 argued, I would not object to that. But when you bring in
2 individual people and specific circumstances, I do consider
3 that is new material. It is no use just saying: "That is
4 not fair on us because we do not have time", because it is
5 over two years ago now that orders were made about the
6 disclosure of statements giving the effect of the evidence
7 the witness was about to give. That is one thing.
8
9 The second thing I would like you to help me on, do you
10 know even now what explanation of what matters Mr. Whittle
11 is going to give when you ask him questions?
12
13 MR. MORRIS: We had a general discussion late last night. I did
14 not get down a great deal of notes. I just said to him:
15 "Well, I am going to ask you to explain what you mean
16 because I just do not have the ability to write down
17 everything that he was saying". That was, you know,
18 1 o'clock in the morning last night, so .....
19
20 MR. JUSTICE BELL: You see, what you are doing is what the
21 orders which were made over two years ago were designed to
22 avoid, and what modern court procedures are designed to
23 avoid, with the service of witness statements in advance on
24 the other side, which is to let the other side know what
25 the real substance of your case is. We have cards open
26 now, not played close to the chest, and we have had that
27 for some time. What I am unhappy about (because I have
28 sympathy with litigants in person; it is not just your
29 problem, it is quite a widespread, practical and procedural
30 problem now) is all that good procedure goes to wall if
31 anyone who is a litigant in person can come into court and
32 say: "I do not have to abide by the rules because I am a
33 litigant in person and I do not have the time or the
34 resources to prepare for statements in advance." That is
35 what is troubling me.
36
37 MS. STEEL: Can I just say, I do not think that we are playing
38 our cards close to our chest. We would love it if we had
39 time to get full statements that, you know, were 50 pages
40 long, going into complete detail about everything we wanted
41 the witnesses to cover. That would be fantastic. It would
42 make our job about a hundred times easier. So we are
43 definitely not playing our cards close to our chest. But,
44 also -- I know I have made this point before -- but the
45 ruling two years ago about witness statements, firstly, we
46 did have to serve them within three weeks but, also, it did
47 apply to the Plaintiffs as well, and they have vastly
48 expanded on their statements when they have gone in the
49 witness box; and I do not think the position should be that
50 it is OK for Plaintiffs because they are going first, that
51 this rule does not apply to them. I do not think it is
52 fair to bring it in halfway through.
53
54 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I cannot say over and over again what I have
55 said. By far the greater expansion of their evidence came
56 in answer to cross-examination, rather than questions in
57 chief; and it does not get over the practical difficulty
58 that if you adduce a whole lot of new evidence now, then
59 I have got to give time to McDonald's, if they want, to go
60 and look for an answer. It is no use saying that you want
