Day 157 - 18 Jul 95 - Page 54
1 Taylor v. Taylor in 1970, although there was some doubt
2 whether his summing up ----
3
4 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I had in mind one which I thought was
5 reported within the last few months, and although as the
6 years pass the last few months often turns out to be two or
7 three years ago ---
8
9 MR. RAMPTON: Not 25 years.
10
11 MR. JUSTICE BELL: -- I did not think it was right back in 1970.
12
13 MR. RAMPTON: That is the only one I could find in Phipson, but
14 your Lordship may well be right, there may have been a more
15 recent one, not the one in 1989. Perhaps one can approach
16 the matter another way by asking the question: What is the
17 purpose and function of the process of discovery in a civil
18 action?
19
20 MR. MORRIS: Sorry, that Taylor v. Taylor, is there a copy
21 available of that?
22
23 MR. RAMPTON: No, not here.
24
25 MR. MORRIS: Have you got a more detailed reference for it
26 then? Is it appeal courts?
27
28 MR. RAMPTON: No, I do not think so.
29
30 MR. JUSTICE BELL: It is the 1970 one, is it?
31
32 MR. RAMPTON: I think it is 1970 All England Reports, yes.
33
34 MR. JUSTICE BELL: 2, All England, 609 or 1 WLR 1148, but there
35 is also 1971 Taylor and 1967 and 65 Taylor v. Taylor.
36
37 MR. RAMPTON: My Lord, I thought I had copies of a passage from
38 Halsbury Laws. I do not seem to have it at the moment.
39 Could I ask your Lordship to indulge me a moment?
40
41 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes. This is 2213 of Phipson, in Taylor v.
42 Taylor the reference given being 1972 All England Reports
43 609 at 614. "It was said that the transcript of evidence
44 in previous criminal proceedings were admissible under both
45 section 2 and section 4", that is the Civil Evidence Act
46 1968. "But it was suggested that the judge's summing up
47 would be admissible under section 4 only".
48
49 MR. RAMPTON: The reason for that, my Lord, that it would be
50 multiple hearsay probably what the judge -----
51
52 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Because section 2 talks of admitting the
53 statement where direct oral evidence could be given by the
54 witness and the judge would be unable to give evidence in
55 the latter proceedings.
56
57 MR. RAMPTON: But he might be thought a person acting under a
58 duty and, therefore, he would fall within section 4.
59
60 MR. MORRIS: Was that Taylor v. Taylor 1972?
