Day 194 - 01 Dec 95 - Page 23

     
     1        served them.  Mr. Coton's evidence may have been fairly
     2        brief before the further and better particulars which the
     3        Plaintiffs wanted answered.
     4
     5        Mr. Brett, who was a witness whose statement was served two
     6        years ago, worked from 1986 to May 1991 which covers all
     7        the relevant time and he ended up as a Second Assistant
     8        Manager.  Therefore, his evidence the Plaintiffs have known
     9        about since two years ago.  Mark Davis was asked about
    10        matters up until 1991 and probably since as well and
    11        Mr. Stanton, because the Plaintiffs put general questions
    12        to both of them.  They did not stop at 1987.
    13
    14        I think that they have dealt with it and they cannot have
    15        two bites at the same cherry.  It puts our position -- I
    16        mean, there may be an argument for recalling Mr. Davis and
    17        Mr. Stanton in the light of the further and better
    18        particulars that the Plaintiffs insisted that we get from
    19        Mr. Coton, but I do not think they should be allowed to
    20        call new witnesses and certainly people from within the
         store, because all our evidence is about the in store
    22        matters on the statements that have been served.
    23
    24        In the light of the further and better particulars, I think
    25        the most that the Plaintiffs should be allowed to do would
    26        be recall Mark Davis and Frank Stanton to deal with those,
    27        but I do not think they should be because it was the
    28        Plaintiffs' initiative to get the further and better
    29        particulars and they are the ones that have made an issue
    30        of it.  But, in any case, we do not think it is fair that
    31        our witnesses go before.
    32
    33   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Why do you say that?
    34
    35   MR. MORRIS:  We are prepared to call Mr. Alimi.
    36
    37   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  What does it matter now we have got to this
    38        stage in the case whose witnesses on any topic go first?
    39
    40   MR. MORRIS:  Because our witnesses have a right to see the
         evidence of their Plaintiff.
    42
    43   MR. JUSTICE BELL:   What is your authority for that because
    44        nowadays in civil litigation although, generally speaking,
    45        the Plaintiff goes first and the Defendant goes second,
    46        trial after trial in this building is conducted on the
    47        basis that witnesses are put in for reasons of convenience
    48        or so that they can be back to back on the same topics.
    49        There is no magic in one side calling their witnesses
    50        before the other.  You have to have some basic approach so 
    51        that you can start the trial at all, but why do you say one 
    52        side rather than another?  I would say this to Mr. Rampton 
    53        if he was suggesting that you call yours first.
    54
    55   MR. MORRIS:  We would certainly agree with that argument if it
    56        was related to closing speeches, but, I mean, the thing is
    57        it is difficult for us.  We have not been experienced in
    58        courts but, I will be quite candid, our understanding of
    59        the way this case has gone is that basically our witnesses
    60        come and tell the truth; the Plaintiffs call a lot of