Page 140 - 5. 2015 New 26-05-21 No Table

A The — there was a dispute by the roadside, wasn’t there,
about whether he was working?
D Yes, yes. That is fair to say.
Q and he was saying he wasn’t and you were saying he was?
A Yes.
Q Right. The initial conversation with him or the initial
interaction with him you has said that he said “I’m busy.
I’m just off to do some work. I’ll give you my insurance.
I’m just going in there to do some work.” He never said
that, did he?
A Well, I believe he did, yes.
Q You’ve just said a moment ago that he was disputing that
he was working?
A Yes. He subsequently did dispute that.
Q Right. So, you’re saying there was this change of tack?
Is that your evidence?
A Yes. My evidence is that Mr Cordell when he realised that
the trader’s policy wasn’t going to sort of pull any wool
over my eyes, he actually became -- that’s what caused
him to become un-co-operative towards me, when he
realised that actually he wasn’t going to be successful in
fobbing me off.
F Well, I suggest to you -- I’ll make it plain. His case is that
you are either being untruthful or mistaken when you say
that he said that he was off to do some work?
A Well, I certainly am being truthful.
18
234,
Q So, we’ve got in terms of your - obviously informing your
thinking of why he — why you thought he was working,
you’ve got — it was a -- it was a week day and it was
during working hours?
Yes?

A Yes.
Q That’s equally consistent with going to see someone about
future work?
Would you agree?

A Yes, it’s — in and of itself it’s not enough, no.
Q You make the point about his what you say were working
clothes covered in paint and dirt?
A Yes.
Q I suggest to you you’re wrong about that and in fact he had
on maybe scruffy jeans but he wasn’t in workmen’s
clothing?
A (No audible reply)
Q You’re wrong, aren’t you?