Day 206 - 22 Jan 96 - Page 25

     
     1        I cannot actually remember when exactly we got the
     2        statements from Colchester but, as I recollect, it was not
     3        until after Christmas that we got all of them.  Yes, in
     4        fact, I did not get them until January because I did not
     5        come back from visiting my parents until New Year's Eve.
     6
     7   MR. RAMPTON:  My Lord, my instructions are that they were served
     8        on Mr. Morris at least on 22nd December.
     9
    10   MS. STEEL:  Mine were put in the post and, as I say, they did
    11        not arrive until after Christmas and I did not get them
    12        until New Year's Eve at the very earliest.
    13
    14        I do not really know what Mr. Rampton is getting excited
    15        about, because there is not that much that the Plaintiff's
    16        witnesses could say in response to what Mr. Alimi has
    17        said.  He is responding to what is in their statements and
    18        the evidence they have given.  So, we know what their
    19        opinion is of Mr. Coton and what their side of the story
    20        is.  So I do not think that they are at any disadvantage
         whatsoever.  In fact, we did not get their statements until
    22        after Mr. Coton had given evidence and Mr. Alimi, so they
    23        were not given a chance to comment on what the Plaintiff's
    24        witnesses have said.  I think Dave wants to say something.
    25
    26   MR. MORRIS:  That last point is exactly the point.  The point is
    27        that we opposed them calling, or we argued about the fact
    28        that they were calling further witnesses from Colchester
    29        after some of our witnesses, including Mr. Alimi and
    30        Mr. Coton, who in this particular matter are the two most
    31        relevant witnesses, had already given evidence.
    32
    33        I am sure it was said at the time (and it would certainly
    34        be logical) that we would have the right of recall of
    35        Mr. Coton or Mr. Alimi to deal with the matters raised by
    36        the rebuttal by the Plaintiff's witnesses.  We chose not to
    37        start recalling witnesses because, you know, we want to
    38        save time if it is possible.  That is one reason we
    39        suggested a Civil Evidence Act notice on this one.  We
    40        believe we had the right of recall of Siamak Alimi and
         Mr. Coton, which we do not wish to invoke or seek to
    42        exercise that right.  So, that is basically it.
    43
    44   MS. STEEL:  Just on opinion or speculation or hearsay, I mean,
    45        that would be separate to the issue of whether this, or
    46        parts of it, were taken as read anyway, or Mr. Alimi is
    47        recalled.  But, as somebody who worked in the store, he
    48        must be able to comment on the nature of the way the place
    49        is organised which I think, well, I know the Plaintiff's
    50        own witnesses have said this could not happen, whatever, 
    51        rather than this did not happen. 
    52 
    53        They have quite frequently made comments and opinions on
    54        this McDonald's system, and why they say they think things
    55        did not happen is because they could not happen rather than
    56        that they know that they did not happen.  So, it is on a
    57        par with the evidence that the Plaintiff's witnesses have
    58        given previously anyway.
    59
    60             (For ruling, please see separate transcript)