Day 263 - 14 Jun 96 - Page 21


     
     1
     2        The only other point I think I have left is to just bring
     3        up some points about the blanking out of individual parts,
     4        based on the GE Capital case.  Have you got that case in
     5        front of you?
     6
     7   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes.
     8
     9   MS. STEEL:   Obviously, you are familiar with it, so I will not
    10        read through it all, but if I refer to a couple of bits --
    11        well, it might be slightly more than that.  On
    12        page 173 -----
    13
    14   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I am using the transcripts at the moment.
    15        Whose judgment is it?
    16
    17   MS. STEEL:   Hoffmann L.J..
    18
    19   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Is it towards the end?
    20
    21   MS. STEEL:  It is towards the beginning; it is actually the
    22        third paragraph.  It is just where he is describing what
    23        the blanking out is.  He says that, in that case:
    24
    25             "All the blanked-out passages contain the names,
    26             amounts or other details of other financing
    27             transactions undertaken by GE which it says do
    28             not 'relate to any matter in question between
    29             [the parties] in the action.'"
    30
    31        Obviously, it could be said that other financial
    32        transactions would have no relevance, whereas notes of a
    33        meeting where the purpose of the notes is to give evidence
    34        of what went on at those meetings, the entire notes would
    35        be relevant.  There are about one matter, and it is the
    36        matter which is at issue in this case.
    37
    38        Going on in this same judgment, I think five paragraphs
    39        after that, just after the indented bit, where it is
    40        talking about the basis for saying whether or not something
    41        is relevant, and it says:
    42
    43             "The oath of the party giving discovery is
    44             conclusive, 'unless the court can be satisfied
    45             -- not on a conflict of affidavits, but either
    46             from the documents produced or from anything in
    47             the affidavit made by the defendant, or by any
    48             admission by him in the pleadings, or
    49             necessarily from the circumstances of the case
    50              -- that the affidavit does not truly state that 
    51             which it ought to state.'" 
    52 
    53        Obviously, in this case, we have not got an affidavit, but
    54        our argument would be that we can see -- (a) from previous
    55        experience, which I have run through, about occasions when
    56        it has been said that all relevant parts have been
    57        disclosed, and then some other parts which clearly were
    58        relevant have been disclosed later; (b), which is more
    59        important, from the subject of the notes themselves,
    60        i.e. that they are about the meetings, which is the issue

Prev Next Index