Day 262 - 13 Jun 96 - Page 57
1 MR. RAMPTON: It would.
2
3 MR. JUSTICE BELL: An area I am familiar with, if you
4 interviewed three doctors and four midwives who have been
5 in a labour ward at a relevant time, and decided to call
6 two of the doctors and two of the midwives, you would have
7 to disclose the statements you have taken from everyone
8 else.
9
10 MR. RAMPTON: That is right. You would. We do not believe that
11 is actually the law, although that is why I raised it in
12 the way that I did, because I think it is quite difficult
13 if you divorce the principle of fairness in relation to a
14 particular transaction from what we might call -- what we
15 would like to call -- the true position in law, which is
16 that you do not, in fact, by calling one witness, waive
17 privilege in relation to all other material relating to
18 potential witnesses that you never did call.
19
20 MR. JUSTICE BELL: But there is no clear authority on that?
21
22 MR. RAMPTON: Only this -- no. The Court of Appeal has not, so
23 far as I know, actually pronounced on this. But there are
24 some very helpful indications in the judgment of
25 Hobhouse J. in the General Accident case, which is reported
26 at [1984] 1 W.L.R., 100.
27
28 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I am very conscious of the time and
29 Mr. Hall's position. I wonder if the question is to leave
30 it there -- because I do not know what he would say about
31 that, anyway.
32
33 MR. RAMPTON: Well, I am quite content to do that. Can I just
34 ask your Lordship to note the passages to which I would
35 have placed really quite heavy emphasis on, because, in our
36 respectful submission, they do represent the reality of
37 litigation under the law. Starting, firstly, at the bottom
38 of page 107, at letter H, where the learned judge recites
39 the submission of Mr. Saville Q.C. (as he then was), and,
40 in particular, on page 108, from the top down to letter G.
41
42 MR. MORRIS: Which case are we on?
43
44 MR. RAMPTON: General Accident Corporation v. Tanter,
45 [1984] 1 W.L.R.. My Lord, I am not going to read it,
46 because your Lordship has invited me not to. At the top of
47 108, going down to letter G, just under letter G on that
48 page, where, in effect, dismissing Mr. Saville's
49 application, Hobhouse J. gives what we conceive to be some
50 very realistic examples of just what your Lordship said a
51 moment ago, the far-reaching consequences to which, if such
52 a submission can be right, would lead.
53
54 Then, my Lord, a short passage reflecting another case
55 tried by Mustill J. (as he then was), starting at the
56 bottom of page 110 -- that was the Nea Karteria case -- and
57 going to the top of 111. Again, your Lordship may feel
58 that that little passage, which reflects the decision of
59 Mustill J. in that case, is helpful, because it is talking
60 about a document which was disclosable because it was
