Day 165 - 27 Sep 95 - Page 19

     
     1        evidence.  Therefore, anything which goes to the
     2        reliability of the notes must be relevant in enabling us to
     3        advance our case.
     4
     5        If I can carry on with what was said there, it carries on:
     6        "It is said that many of these questions might be put to
     7        the Defendant in cross-examination; but that would not be
     8        for the purpose of proving what the particular transaction
     9        had been, except only to the extent of showing that the
    10        Defendant's evidence as to this particular transaction was
    11        not to be credited because of the admissions made by him
    12        with regard to the other transactions.  But because those
    13        questions might be put to the Defendant in
    14        cross-examination, it by no means follows that evidence as
    15        to such transactions would be relevant evidence to be given
    16        in-chief by the Plaintiff.  I entertain a strong opinion
    17        that interrogatories of this description, unless strictly
    18        relevant to the question at issue in the action, ought to
    19        be rigorously excluded.  They cause a great amount of
    20        hardship and oppression."
    21
    22        Again, that is the reason that is begin for excluding such
    23        interrogatories.  I really do not think that is picked up
    24        on very much in the Thorpe case.  I feel that is an
    25        important part, simply because the Plaintiffs are not in a
    26        position to argue that it would be oppressive to disclose
    27        the unblanked out parts of the document.
    28
    29        As a general point, it seemed to me that this case was
    30        about similar fact transactions and yet it is quoted as
    31        being the reason for disallowing discovery which is solely
    32        related to credit.  That seems to be the only reference in
    33        the Thorpe case for saying that it has been a long standing
    34        practice not to order discovery which is related solely to
    35        credit.  The only case quoted is the Kennedy case which is
    36        not really about credit and the Ballantine case which is
    37        also about similar fact transactions.
    38
    39        I have just got to check whether there is anything else
    40        I wanted to say.
    41
    42   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I really think you have said all you could
    43        reasonably say and I will consider it before making a
    44        decision.  Is there anything more you want to say?
    45
    46   MS. STEEL:   In terms of the business about jogging memories, it
    47        is disputed what Mr. Rampton said and, in particular,
    48        I have stated that I cannot remember which particular
    49        meetings I have attended.  I do think that what was
    50        discussed at those meetings would be of assistance in 
    51        helping to remind me of whether or not I was there and 
    52        whether or not I agree with the evidence being given by the 
    53        witness as to what occurred.  I think that is it.
    54
    55   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes, thank you.  Is there anything you want
    56        to say that Ms. Steel has not said?
    57
    58   MR. MORRIS:  Yes.  I am just going to say seven points, I think
    59        it is.  First of all, this is a fundamental part of the
    60        case, obviously, because if the Plaintiffs who have the