Day 157 - 18 Jul 95 - Page 24
1 80 sheets of paper for the day which that party is entitled
2 to demand and to obtain, provided that party pays the
3 official shorthand writers' charges.
4
5 The charges are higher than they might otherwise be because
6 instead of solemnly transcribing the note which is taken
7 with pen and ink, or by virtue of a stenography machine, if
8 that is the appropriate way to describe it, expensive
9 technology has been loaded on top at the expense of
10 Plaintiffs.
11
12 But, nevertheless, although the mechanics are different, we
13 then have a transcript of the official shorthand note
14 referred to in Ord. 68, r. 1.
15
16 What I said on 4th July is that I could not see any power
17 to order the party who, in accordance with the rule, has
18 demanded the transcript and paid the charges for it to
19 provide copies to another party -- as it happens, another
20 party not contributing to the cost -- but to another
21 party.
22
23 I said in my ruling you should have the opportunity to come
24 back and argue that I did have that power if you thought of
25 something new. I also said that I could not find anywhere
26 a power to order that public funds be spent in order to
27 provide you with a copy of the transcript, but I said that
28 if you did find any such power, again you could come back
29 to me and tell me about it.
30
31 MR. MORRIS: As I understand the situation with regard to
32 Barnett Lenton, at minimum it is a hybrid situation because
33 they are producing CaseView and they are producing real
34 time CaseView and they are producing a transcript checked
35 against court tapes at the end of the day, or whatever, or
36 during the day, and because they are acting on behalf of a
37 party then, effectively, some part of their existence in
38 the court must be unofficial and, therefore, leave should
39 be sought and conditions can be imposed, and one of the
40 conditions we would seek that be imposed that McDonald's
41 have to hand a copy of the transcript to the Defendants
42 because of their obvious -- the minimum is a hybrid
43 situation under the previous Practice Directions we looked
44 at before which has been canvassed already.
45
46 Anyway, that is our application on that.
47
48 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes, I understand that. You see, the
49 discovery application goes to McDonald's responsibility,
50 but if we look at the public funds argument now, we
51 have ----
52
53 MR. JUSTICE BELL: What you are saying, if I understand it, is
54 that I should direct that there should be no shorthand note
55 unless any transcription of that note be provided to you as
56 well as to the Plaintiffs?
57
58 MR. MORRIS: No, what we are saying is that there should be a
59 shorthand note and we are not trying to -----
60
