Day 164 - 26 Sep 95 - Page 52
1 report I will give you which is reports of patent cases, is
2 it? It is the one I got wrong before and was corrected on,
3 RPC.
4
5 MR. RAMPTON: It is patent cases.
6
7 MS. STEEL: Of what?
8
9 MR. JUSTICE BELL: 1975 RPC Reports of Patent Cases 111, but
10 will you find it far easier to get hold of a Weekly Law
11 Report or the All England Law report than you will of a
12 report of patent cases.
13
14 MR. RAMPTON: My Lord, the other case -- I have one letter
15 wrong, I confess -- this is read from Style and Hollander,
16 Documentary Evidence, published by Longman in 1993, page
17 121, the second paragraph: "Discovery will not be ordered
18 on matters which would go solely to cross-examination as to
19 credit". Thorpe v. Chief Constable of Greater Manchester,
20 1989 1 WLR 665 and 669, and old case Kennedy v. Dodson,
21 1895 1 Chancery 334. Then it goes on, it is right I read
22 it: "The Application of this rule" -----
23
24 MR. JUSTICE BELL: What was the Chancery case?
25
26 MR. RAMPTON: Kennedy v. Dodson, 1895 1 Chancery 334. It goes
27 on: "The application of this rule may not be as
28 straightforward as the principle. In a fraud action the
29 Defendant's state of mind is an issue in the case and
30 documents which are relevant to this are relevant to an
31 issue in the case and not merely as cross-examination
32 material." The authors have written that. I should not
33 have thought that was not anything other than blindingly
34 obvious, to be quite honest, with respect. My Lord, we
35 will bring Thorpe along tomorrow.
36
37 MS. STEEL: If it is worth mentioning now, that the Thorpe case
38 is mentioned in the White Book on page 438, Ord. 24 r. 2.
39
40 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Sorry, page?
41
42 MS. STEEL: It is page 438 at the top, the second paragraph.
43 That was talking about that the Plaintiff was not entitled
44 to discovery of documents containing adjudications of guilt
45 in police disciplinary proceedings against police officers
46 allegedly involved in the Plaintiff's arrest and detention
47 since the documents are not probative of the conduct
48 alleged". Then it says: "The Court should not order
49 discovery on matters which go solely to cross-examination
50 or as to similar fact transactions where such discovery
51 would be oppressive and where evidence of such transactions
52 is not admissible." I do not really think that it could be
53 argued that it would be oppressive to unblank pages of
54 documents.
55
56 MR. JUSTICE BELL: We will have to look at the case.
57
58 MR. RAMPTON: We will have to look at the case but, in a sense,
59 that citation makes my point, I think. Anyhow, if the
60 authorities do not support what I have said, they do not,
