Day 205 - 17 Jan 96 - Page 28


     
     1        course, they would have power and control over documents
     2        from their franchisees.
     3
     4        So, in my view, his statement voluntarily made is
     5        deliberately avoiding ascertaining the facts on these
     6        important matters.  Really, it is wasting court time to
     7        have to do an interrogatory when Mr. Stein could have made
     8        diligent enquiries in general.  But, as far as I can see
     9        also, one thing I have found in the White Book under
    10        Ord. 26 r. 5/3, the third paragraph in that section:  "If
    11        an answer is embarrassing or is so involved and so
    12        insufficient in the particular statement as to be incapable
    13        of being used, this is actually an interrogatory, if the
    14        Plaintiffs are saying that this is, effectively, what an
    15        interrogatory would do, it would justify a further order
    16        for further information.
    17
    18        The statement of Mr. Stein voluntarily made is basically so
    19        insufficient that it cannot be used.  It will not help the
    20        court one way or another to know whether or not the
    21        Plaintiffs now have no records of incidents as to whether
    22        they are true or not.  Obviously, they are true as far as
    23        I can see, otherwise, unless the New York Times (whatever
    24        it was) was completely manufacturing the whole series of
    25        citations, it is just absurd, you know, even though it is.
    26
    27        So, the point is the Plaintiffs clearly, by any common
    28        sense yardstick, should have to ascertain within their own
    29        ability the facts, and that is the point of the
    30        interrogatory.  As has been said, a voluntary statement or
    31        a notice to admit does not have the same weight of
    32        obligation on the Company.
    33
    34        I cannot find in the White Book, though, where the
    35        obligation of the Company is laid out, but I would believe
    36        in previous applications that it is to make all relevant
    37        inquiries, not just to see if a current record exists of
    38        something.
    39
    40        I do not believe the Plaintiffs, if they have nothing to
    41        hide, should worry about having to answer some
    42        interrogatories.  I am trying to check the White Book.
    43
    44   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Are you thinking of 26/2/2, on page 497?
    45
    46   MR. MORRIS:  Yes, and 26/2/1 as well, because also whoever the
    47        most suitable person is also an issue.
    48
    49   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  But the point which I think is being taken
    50        against you is that a very large corporation like the First 
    51        Plaintiff, the way you make these inquiries is, you ask the 
    52        person who has some responsibility for it (which is 
    53        Mr. Stein) and then he instigates some search for records.
    54        He does not go round asking everyone who might had some
    55        personal knowledge of it, not in a large corporation.  If
    56        it was a small firm of 12 employees, it might be
    57        different.  That is what he has done; and that, really, all
    58        he has said in his statement is what would be a sufficient
    59        answer to interrogatories.
    60

Prev Next Index