Our Story

31 MR. McKENDRICK: My Lord, I’m going to object at this

32 point. And I’m going to object because I think

33 this is just a complete waste of time.

55 Lucy Hundley (the Plaintiff) (Recalled)Cross-exam by Mr. Davison

3 MR. DAVISON: My Lord, what is at issue is — as you

4 may have noticed, Mr. Hunter’s initialled some

5 parts of this contract. What’s at issue is now

6 when he did that did he do that with the parties’

7 approval? Ms. Hundley can’t recall if it was done

8 before she saw it or not. Generally, it’s the

9 conduct of Mr. Hunter that is at issue (a); and

10 (b) we have a party to this agreement — this is

11 clearly not just a photocopy, or we would suggest

12 it is not just a photocopy. And if I’m given a

13 few minutes I think I can point out that although

14 that’s the assumption we made up until just

15 recently, these appear to be two different

16 agreements. And I — we can point Your — My Lord

17 to those sections and — and — of the two

18 different contracts, but they’re clearly what —

19 the differences that go beyond photocopying. Does

20 that change —

21 THE COURT: And how — and how is this relevant on the

22 pleadings?

23 MR. DAVISON: We suggest that Mr. Hunter has done some

24 — has acted negligently, a breach of contract.

25 And we would suggest — at this point we don’t

26 know what is going to be the end result.

27 Mr. Hunter may say that there was a second

28 contract. He may say he doesn’t know. But,

29 certainly, it adds to an issue that we have,

30 clearly. And the first page — and I’ll point to

31 Ms. Hundley’s initials in the bottom left-hand

32 corner. They’re different. Now, I’d like to know

33 if she adopts them as both being hers, but these

34 are different agreements. So maybe if we explore

35 this we’ll see that Ms. Hundley did — does now

36 remember signing a second agreement. But,

37 certainly, to create a second document and not to

38 disclose that, we — we should be allowed to