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