Day 120 - 03 May 95 - Page 29

     
     1        of argument, against the whole background
     2
     3   MR. MORRIS:  Just if we can sort of finish off this issue.  Have
     4        you read the witness statements of the Defendants on this
     5        issue?
     6        A.  No.
     7
     8   Q.   None of them?
     9        A.  No.  I do not have any in my bundle over there.
    10
    11   Q.   Many of them are former McDonald's employees.  Are you not
    12        interested in what they have to say about -----
    13        A.  Who are?
    14
    15   Q.   Our witnesses; that we are going to be calling in this
    16        case.  Are you not interested to read what they have said
    17        for the purpose of this case?
    18        A.  Not unless it affects me.
    19
    20   Q.   If it is employment issues then you are the main witness
         for McDonald's?
    22        A.  If you are talking about your, sorry -- if you are
    23        talking about the witnesses are coming up because of
    24        tribunal cases, I have read through our tribunal papers.
    25
    26   Q.   No, I mean our witnesses we have got.
    27
    28   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  You know for are the purposes of the
    29        litigation-- may be you do not-- that each side has had to
    30        serve statements of its potential witnesses?
    31        A.  Yes, I have not read all of their statements.  I have
    32        had one or two.
    33
    34   Q.   Have you read any statements of witnesss whom the
    35        Defendants might call in relation to employment issues,
    36        save insofar as as their contained in the industrial
    37        tribunal files?
    38        A.  No, I have not.
    39
    40   MR. MORRIS:  On the subject of unions, you have not read, for
         example, Andrew Crammer, a former McDonald's-----
    42
    43   MR. RAMPTON:  I do not think this is fair. It is fair for two
    44        reasons; firstly because Mr. Nicholson has not read it;
    45        secondly because he has no personal knowledge of what
    46        Mr. Crammer might depose to if he came to court; and ,
    47        third, because he has not actually been to court and given
    48        evidence.
    49
    50   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  He has given you his answer.  He has not read 
    51        these.  What is the point in asking about whether he has 
    52        therefore read a statement of a particular witness.  If you 
    53        have some particular point in mind, tell me what you are
    54        trying to get at.
    55
    56   MR. MORRIS:  There is a theme on this issue running through many
    57        of the statements obviously.
    58
    59   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Is this not comment in due course, depending
    60        on what evidence has actually come out at the end of the