It happened in 1932, in Donoghue v Stevenson  AC 562. The defence in the case relied on the fact that the Plaintiff had no privity of contract with the Defendant. She, the Plaintiff had consumed some of the contents of a bottle of ginger beer. She discovered what she perceived as the remains of a decomposing snail in the bottom of the bottle and became ill as a consequence. She had been given the beer by the purchaser.
Bertieâs friends are particularly brazen in claiming âunfair proceduresâ? on the part of the Tribunal. Of what do they think cross-examination consists? Do they think counsel should write down his questions and give advance notice of them in that format? And not deviate from the script?