Day 194 - 01 Dec 95 - Page 07

     
     1        subject to any further direction I make this morning, on
     2        what interest was shown to Mr. Sutcliffe in joining a union
     3        and of the meeting with Mr. Nicholson, but not in relation
     4        to any other matters.
     5
     6        The expansion of hurrying up and who told him to hurry up
     7        is a matter which goes beyond what is presently in his
     8        statement.  The same applies to any evidence about
     9        accidents.  I have Mr. Sutcliffe's evidence about his own
    10        accident -- or I will have, I anticipate, in a few minutes
    11        when Mr. Morris asks Mr. Sutcliffe to aver the statement
    12        which he has made.  The other matters which Mr. Morris has
    13        raised seem to me to be some expansion of the statement.
    14
    15        I adhere to what I said in my ruling on 18th October.  For
    16        the avoidance of doubt, whatever I may have said in the
    17        past, if the Defendants want to adduce evidence from their
    18        witnesses which brings in new matters in order to gainsay
    19        what the Defendants' (sic) witnesses have said in evidence,
    20        they must give the notice which I directed on
         18th October.
    22
    23        I have it very clearly in mind that the real position of
    24        Mr. Sutcliffe's evidence in relation to East Ham, in this
    25        case, is in relation to any antipathy which the Second
    26        Plaintiff (McDonald's in this country) may have had to
    27        unions and unionisation.  That is what I really want to
    28        hear about from Mr. Sutcliffe.
    29
    30        So, you can go ahead, ask him to aver the statement and ask
    31        him about how much interest was actually shown in
    32        unionisation in the East Ham restaurant, and about his
    33        recollection of the meeting which Mr. Nicholson attended.
    34
    35   MS. STEEL:  Can I ask for clarification?  When you say if
    36        we "want to adduce some evidence from our witnesses which
    37        brings new matters in order to gainsay what the
    38        Plaintiffs" -- actually, it says "Defendants" here, but
    39        I presume it should be "Plaintiffs" -- "witnesses have said
    40        in evidence, we have to give notice", if, for example, it
         is something like a manager says, "Accidents were not very
    42        common", and our witness wants to say, "Yes, they were", or
    43        he disagrees with that, are you saying that we have to give
    44        notice of that, even?
    45
    46   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes, certainly.  If it is something
    47        like: "Mr. Sutcliffe said this to me", and, when
    48        Mr. Sutcliffe is in the witness box, you want to ask
    49        Mr. Sutcliffe:  "Did you say that", knowing in advance that
    50        Mr. Sutcliffe's -- I am merely taking this as an example -- 
    51        answer is "No", then it may well be that I will have no 
    52        objection.  But if you are going to use the witness as an 
    53        opportunity to reap evidence of generalities, you must give
    54        the notice.  It is not difficult; and if you turn your
    55        minds to it, you can do it, I am sure, without any
    56        difficulty.
    57
    58   MR. MORRIS:  So, just to give a example, I was going to test the
    59        evidence of Mr. Sexton on day 135 page 12, where he said
    60        -- "You said that grievances would be attended to and