Day 253 - 21 May 96 - Page 49


     
     1        those people.  Then I look to see whether I have any
     2        relevant documents but not before.  If I do, then I have to
     3        ask myself whether they are the subject of legal
     4        professional privilege. If they are, then I have to
     5        persuade your Lordship that I am right.
     6
     7        If ever I have seen a fishing interrogatory, if I may put
     8        it bluntly, it is No. 3 on this list, particularly when the
     9        Defendants, as your Lordship has just observed, have in
    10        fact got access to all the information they need if they
    11        are willing to do the work and find out the answers to the
    12        questions which they want answered.  Without the
    13        authorities, I do not know whether I can the matter any
    14        further.
    15
    16   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  The authorities, as I understand it, in any
    17        event, only go to -- I say "only go", it may be very
    18        important -- but go to the question of legal professional
    19        privilege.  They do not go to the usual considerations as
    20        to whether leave should be given to serve interrogatories
    21        or whether any order ----
    22
    23   MR. RAMPTON:  No, my Lord, obviously a block on an interrogatory
    24        is legal professional privilege, but if the court thinks
    25        that in the first place, in any event, irrespective of any
    26        question of legal professional privilege, the interrogatory
    27        is inadmissible because, put bluntly, it is fishing, why
    28        then no question of legal professional privilege or
    29        authorities ever arises.
    30
    31   MR. JUSTICE BELL: Leave aside questions of legal professional
    32        privilege.  What I want to know is how, in any event, quite
    33        regardless of that, you would argue that these
    34        interrogatories are justified?
    35
    36   MS. STEEL:  Well, can I just say actually that we were not
    37        actually applying for documents so it is not a question of,
    38        at this stage anyway, whether they should go, whether they
    39        have to disclose anything or anything like that.
    40
    41        Can I say, firstly, that this actually arises not out of
    42        our pleading, although it does relate to that as well, but
    43        it mainly arises out of the Plaintiffs' pleaded case that
    44        we are responsible for everything that went on at meetings
    45        of London Greenpeace or at the events.  Therefore,
    46        obviously, it is relevant to know which actions were taken
    47        and which things were said by the Plaintiffs' agent.
    48
    49        That relates also to the counterclaim because the
    50        Plaintiffs allege that the reason they put out their 
    51        leaflets was to deal with leaflets which were being 
    52        distributed subsequent to the writs and obviously, bearing 
    53        in mind the fact that inquiry agents we know attended the
    54        meetings for a considerable period after the writs were
    55        served, it is relevant to know what dates they attended and
    56        how many, what degree of influence they had on the group,
    57        and so on.
    58
    59        Basically, all the interrogatories ask, and whilst we have
    60        had a reply to the letter, the main point to number 1 is

Prev Next Index