Day 072 - 12 Jan 95 - Page 10
1 blanked out those parts of these documents which do not
2 ----
3
4 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Which page is that again?
5
6 MR. RAMPTON: It is page 780, my Lord, of the pink file. I need
7 add, I think, only this, that the reason why we resolutely
8 decline to disclose parts, irrelevant parts, of documents,
9 and we see as total compliance with the Court of Appeal's
10 decision in the GE Capital Corporate Finance case, is
11 obvious, it is this: So soon as the Defendants are given a
12 piece of paper which indicates to them that there is more
13 to be said (and I use that word neutrally) about McDonald's
14 than they have been able to plead, what is more than is to
15 be found in the leaflet, one knows what happens; one is
16 embarked then on a two, three, maybe four day, on what
17 I call a voyage of exploration down what is an irrelevant
18 blind alley.
19
20 We are not willing that the Defendants should be given that
21 opportunity simply in order, as Mr. Morris, I think, would
22 see it, that he can run an audit of McDonald's whole
23 operation. My Lord, I do not think I have anything more to
24 say.
25
26 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Before I hear Mr. Morris again, may I ask you
27 about one matter? In the GE Capital Corporate Finance
28 Group case, there was reference to averments on affidavit,
29 in effect, that the parts blanked out were not relevant.
30 That could merely be, I suppose, by scheduling to any
31 affidavit on the basis that you put in what is relevant and
32 implicitly leave out what is not, but what is the position
33 in this case? Were there affidavits in relation to -----
34
35 MR. RAMPTON: Not in relation to these documents, certainly not.
36 One would not have made an affidavit in the normal course
37 of events unless asked to do so by the court.
38
39 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes, but you would say it does not matter
40 whether it is actually on affidavit if, in effect, it is
41 averred that they are not relevant, the same applies.
42
43 MR. RAMPTON: It is a declaration when the list is served and
44 inspection is given more particularly in accordance to the
45 rules, it is an averment or declaration by the parties
46 through his solicitors that the parts which have been
47 blanked out are not relevant. He avers that he has
48 disclosed all relevant material in his possession, custody
49 or power. My Lord, I do not know why an affidavit was
50 served in this case; perhaps because the opposite party
51 persuaded the judge that it should be; I really do not
52 know. Sometimes that happens.
53
54 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I think the references went back, perhaps, to
55 a time when, I do not know, historically there were always
56 affidavits relating to list of documents, if that ever was
57 the case.
58
59 MR. RAMPTON: It may be so. In some divisions of the High
60 Court, it may be common practice to swear an affidavit as a
