Day 194 - 01 Dec 95 - Page 19
1 have got witnesses about to go into the witness box, and we
2 have already some witnesses who have been in the witness
3 box, then we certainly do not wish to call Mr. Coton on
4 Wednesday and, in fact, before any further witnesses are
5 called by the Plaintiffs.
6
7 We have not had any statements, we have not had any names;
8 and, in fact, we have no guarantee that they will call
9 further witnesses. We have no idea what they are going to
10 say. Our witnesses should be dealing with their witnesses
11 have already said.
12
13 So, basically, we are applying now tht they should not be
14 able to call any further witnesses from Colchester, and
15 then we can get on with Mr. Coton.
16
17 Obviously, Mr. Alimi has already been scheduled, and we do
18 not want to move him, and we would not be able to find a
19 replacement for him. I have already asked Mr. Cranna if he
20 could move forward if Mr. Coton is vacated. Mr. Cranna is
21 willing to come on Thursday. At least, that would get us
22 back on schedule to some extent. I will have to make
23 further phone calls if Mr. Cotton is moved.
24
25 Obviously, we can call our witnesses in any order, in any
26 event, but we do not want to lose any more days than
27 necessary.
28
29 So, really, what we are doing is, we are saying that the
30 Plaintiffs have put their case on Colchester. It is not as
31 if they have not got someone at a high enough level,
32 because they have called a senior Supervisor and former
33 Store Manager who knew about situation at all times,
34 material times, and given evidence over a substantial
35 number of days.
36
37 Mr. Coton was verifying what the previous witnesses had
38 said and what our witnesses had said, so there is no need
39 for any further Colchester witnesses. In any case, the
40 Plaintiffs should not have a right to call them after our
41 witnesses have started being called.
42
43 So we are applying that they are not allowed to call any
44 further witnesses from Colchester.
45
46 MR. RAMPTON: Mr. Morris, I am afraid, as usual, is trying to
47 turn the world on its head. One starts with the
48 proposition that he needs leave to call Mr. Coton.
49 Mr. Coton's statement was served, I think, on
50 26th October 1995. Our witnesses had given evidence in
51 July, to deal with the Defendants case as it then was, as
52 reflected in the statements of the people who served in the
53 restaurant, at least in part, while Mark Davis was the
54 Manager and while Mr. Frank Stanton was, for a time (about
55 a year) the Supervisor. That is what they dealt with when
56 they came to give evidence.
57
58 Your Lordship will remember that when Mr. Coton's statement
59 was served, I complained that it lacked a particularity.
60 Your Lordship said on 1st November that we should serve, in
