Day 208 - 24 Jan 96 - Page 03

     1        and see what I am told by either side about what the
     2        position is.  The memorandum clearly says that the law with
     3        regard to breaks still bites.  That was one of the things
     4        which was not changed.  I will wait to be educated in due
     5        course as to what the law was, in so far as any party in
     6        the action thinks it is important for me to know.
     8   MR. MORRIS:  If the Plaintiffs know, they should say.  I think
     9        Mr. Rampton has an obligation to the court to ------
    11   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  No, I am sorry.  The law is the law.  The
    12        mere fact that one party knows more about it than another
    13        is neither here nor there.  Mr. Rampton cannot just stand
    14        up and say: "The law is this"; he has got to actually refer
    15        me to the provisions.  If both parties are agreed that the
    16        law is this, then there may be no need for the judge to go
    17        back to the particular sources; he can accept that as
    18        agreed.  But, generally speaking, it is not for an advocate
    19        or a witness (save in certain circumstances which do not
    20        apply here, unless American law crops up) to say what the
    21        law is.  The judge is just referred to the Act of
    22        Parliament, the regulations and whatever ---
    24   MR. MORRIS:  I mean -----
    26   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  -- to see what it is.
    28   MR. MORRIS:  Yes.  I mean, the situation, as we understand it,
    29        is that we have taken at face value what McDonald's
    30        understanding of the legislation is, as their party we are
    31        challenging, and it is conceivable they did not know what
    32        the law was and they were just making up something.  But we
    33        are working on that basis.  If the Plaintiffs wish to
    34        challenge it, I think the obligation should be on them to
    35        say they are going to challenge that.  If there is consent
    36        between the parties, as has been suggested, that is fine;
    37        and we are working on the basis that, until challenged,
    38        that is what the law is, what McDonald's themselves said to
    39        their own Supervisors doing their audits.
    41        Also, there is the obligation, because we are defendants in
    42        person, we do not have access to legal literature such as
    43        the Plaintiffs have easily; and, really, it is a continuing
    44        issue that is going to come up with the witnesses today and
    45        tomorrow, and next week as well.
    47   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Quite frankly, it is up to you to know what
    48        the law is in relation to these things.  You said from time
    49        to time to witnesses in cross-examining them that that was
    50        against the law.  You have either declared it or asked the 
    51        witness to agree that it is against the law.  In due 
    52        course, I will have to be taken, where illegality is 
    53        alleged, to chapter and verse.  It may turn out, when I am
    54        taken to chapter and verse, if Mr. Rampton is doing it, you
    55        will stand up and say, "We accept that", or, if you are
    56        doing it, Mr. Rampton will stand up and say, "We accept
    57        that", and we may then be able to take a short cut.
    59   MR. MORRIS:  Maybe we will leave that to the end of the case.

Prev Next Index