Day 194 - 01 Dec 95 - Page 18

     
     1
     2   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  What I do not have to do is, Mr. Rampton,
     3        when you call a witness who says she worked after 10 p.m.
     4        or he worked after midnight, is say:  "I must put it to you
     5        that you did not work after 10", or "I must put it to you
     6        that you did not work after midnight."  By the time we get
     7        to that stage, the conflict is clear to me.
     8
     9        Put that on one side a moment, because the matter I want to
    10        ask you about is this, before Mr. Sutcliffe leaves the
    11        witness box.  You need not look it up, and we may have
    12        mentioned it before, but on page 34 of tab 7, item 94,
    13        which is the East Ham McDonald's matter, it starts off: "In
    14        or around January 1986..."
    15
    16   MS. STEEL:   I think we said that that was a mistake.
    17
    18   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  It should be 1987, I assume; and I assume
    19        your information comes from Mr. Sutcliffe.
    20
    MR. MORRIS:  Entirely, yes.
    22
    23   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes -- and not from some other person who has
    24        suggested that it did happen in January 1986.
    25
    26   MR. MORRIS:  Yes.
    27
    28   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes.  Thank you very much, Mr. Sutcliffe.  If
    29        you would like to go and sit down.
    30
    31                        (The witness withdrew)
    32
    33   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I am going to actually alter my extract
    34        to "1987".
    35
    36   MR. MORRIS:  Regarding Mr. Coton, did you see a letter
    37        which -----
    38
    39   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes.  I read that before I came into court.
    40
    MR. MORRIS:  Right.  I mean, we are not happy about calling
    42        Mr. Coton on Wednesday, for two reasons.  There are the 60
    43        pages of documents which are quite detailed, which we got
    44        last night or yesterday afternoon, or something, but also
    45        about the suggestion that the Plaintiffs have got other
    46        witnesses from Colchester.  They have already called their
    47        witnesses from Colchester.  They have already called
    48        Mr. Davis and Mr. Stanton, who gave evidence over four or
    49        five days at some length, explaining the situation, which
    50        is one of the reasons we have sought out Mr. Coton to 
    51        respond to what they were saying.  I do not see why the 
    52        Plaintiffs should be able to call any further witnesses at 
    53        all from Colchester.  If that was the case, then we would
    54        be happy to call Mr. Coton on Wednesday and deal with any
    55        queries about the documents over the phone with him, the
    56        60 documents, and get things moving on.
    57
    58        But if the Plaintiffs intend to call further witnesses, we
    59        want to oppose that.  If they are allowed to call further
    60        witnesses which we have not had any statements of, and we