Home> People> Carolyn
Sample Steve Wilson Toby
Johnstone Andrew Bruce Paul
'SHALL I COMPARE THEE TO A SUMMER'S DAY?'
The title of Sonnet 18 by William Shakespeare (1564-1616)
When it came to his Judgement on the BALPA Affair, Judge Richard Seymour QC was less
than complimentary about Renault and its witnesses, including past and present employees
Carolyn Sample, Steve Wilson, Toby Johnson and Keith Hayles.
Here's what His Lordship had to say about Carolyn Sample of Renault ...
CAROLYN SAMPLE, RENAULT:
'Miss Sample would have it that it was not until the meeting on 26 April 2006 that
she considered that she had concrete proof. In my judgment that, if true, could only
have been because she did not wish to draw the obvious conclusions from what she knew.
In fact I do not accept her evidence on that point. I find that the probability is
that she actually knew perfectly well ....... If she did not actually know that perfectly
well, it could only have been because she chose to shut that knowledge out of her
mind, to turn a blind eye.'
'Mr. Johnstone indicated that Miss Sample must have known that the terms of the scheme
were being misused, but was prepared to take no notice of that. I accept Mr. Thoms's
evidence that that is what Mr. Johnstone said.'
'In her witness statement, in my view, she exaggerated the reassurances which she
contended that Mr. Thoms had given.'.
CAROLYN SAMPLE'S 'STATE OF MIND'
In this extract from 'Framed By The Frogs' Renault's barrister Andrew Bruce of Serle Court
Chambers takes a swipe at Carolyn Sample, one of his client Renault's own witnesses:
"...undeterred, Mr Bruce is trying again. His client will go direct to the Court of
Appeal since His Lordship won't grant an appeal. And by the way, can he please have
some extra time to do it as he wants to obtain a transcript of Carolyn Sample's witness
stand testimony? Apparently it's something to do with her 'state of mind'.
For a brief moment he seems to be suggesting that one of his client's key witnesses
is a nutcase.
Wait a minute. Ah, I see, he reckons that, rather than having turned a blind eye to
what was going on, Carolyn Sample was simply negligent in her job.
Bloody Hell. No wonder Carolyn Sample hasn't turned up. Would you want to sit in a
Courtroom and listen to your employer's lawyer plead that you were negligent in your
job as an excuse for an appeal in a failed one million pound law suit?
His Lordship wants to know if I have any objections to extending the time limit for
Renault to appeal direct to the Court of Appeal. Normally it would be 21 days, but
Mr Bruce has asked for another 14 days to allow for the time to have Carolyn Sample's
testimony transcribed so it can be scrutinised in detail for evidence of her 'state
Boy, Renault must be thinking of doing a real hatchet job on Carolyn Sample if it
wants all that detail and extra time.
Well, this means that we will also be provided with a copy of the transcript and the
Appeal document in which Renault will trash Carolyn Sample's reputation and presumably
deliver her up as an extremely negligent employee. So I'm more than happy for Renault
to take as long as it needs.
I have to say though, that if Renault is going to allege negligence on the part of
Carolyn Sample then it will have to be prepared to do a really nasty hatchet job.
Leaving aside the quirks of the BALPA affair, Carolyn Sample has always struck me
as a very competent 'belt and braces' type who wouldn't make mistakes through negligence,
even if she had turned a blind eye to the BALPA shenanigans.
Well, what a turnaround for Carolyn Sample. Dump you in a Courtroom, 'firm up' your
evidence (as His Lordship said) then shit on you from a great height because you lost.
And if Renault is prepared to do that to Carolyn Sample for the sake of its Claim,
goodness knows what kind of carve up it is preparing for Toby Johnstone and Steve
Wilson. On that basis I can't see Renault making the 'Top 100 Companies to Work For'
list any time soon."
More of Carolyn Sample on the Witness Stand ...
© 2009 Legal Mumbo Jumbo