Day 149 - 06 Jul 95 - Page 52


     
     1   MR. RAMPTON:  No, I have not got it here.  It is in the White
     2        Book.  My Lord, it is classic Ord. 24, rule 3 (sic),
     3        discovery, so far as I remember.
     4
     5   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Spell it out, Mr. Rampton.  You may know
     6        something others do not.
     7
     8   MR. RAMPTON:  That may be, my Lord.  I am sure your Lordship
     9        knows it.  It may take me a little bit of time to plough
    10        through the notes.  Yes, the rule says, my Lord, Ord. 24,
    11        rule 2:  "Subject to the provisions of this rule and of
    12        rule 4, the parties" ------
    13
    14   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes, let me find it.
    15
    16   MR. RAMPTON:  Sorry, my Lord, it is page 434 of volume 1.
    17
    18   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes.
    19
    20   MR. RAMPTON:  It is Ord. 24, rule 2(1):  "Subject to the
    21        provisions of this rule and of rule 4, the parties to an
    22        action between whom pleadings are closed must make
    23        discovery by exchanging lists of documents and,
    24        accordingly, each party must, within 14 days after the
    25        pleadings in the action are deemed to be closed as between
    26        him and any other party" ---
    27
    28   MS. STEEL:  Sorry, can Mr. Rampton read slowly?
    29
    30   MR. RAMPTON:  None of this matters; "... make and serve on that
    31        other party a list of the documents which are or have been
    32        in his possession, custody or power relating to any matter
    33        in question between them in the action."
    34
    35        Then, my Lord, if one looks at the note on page 437 at
    36        24/2/5, one sees this, the quote from the rule:  "'Relating
    37        to any matter in question between them' - these words
    38        refer, not to the subject-matter of an action, but to the
    39        questions in the action".  Then there is an example.  "They
    40        are not limited to documents which would be admissible in
    41        evidence (Financiere du Pacifique v. Peruvian Guano Co.
    42        (1882) 11 QBD, page 55, per Lord Esher, MR, O'Rourke v.
    43        Darbishire (1920) AC 581, page 630) nor to those which
    44        would prove or disprove any matter in question: any
    45        document which, it is reasonable to suppose, 'contains
    46        information which may enable the party (applying for
    47        discovery) either to advance his own case or to damage that
    48        of his adversary, if it is a document which may fairly lead
    49        him to a train of enquiry which may have either of those
    50        two consequences' must be disclosed".  Then they quote the 
    51        Peruvian Guano case again.  So, my Lord, if there is a 
    52        press cutting ----- 
    53
    54   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes, I have to confess you have read that to
    55        me before and it has completely slipped my mind.
    56
    57   MR. RAMPTON:  It is the whole basis on which we have made
    58        discovery in this case; not that the documents are
    59        admissible or probative of anything, but that they relate
    60        in that indirect way to an issue in the case.

Prev Next Index