Day 263 - 14 Jun 96 - Page 25


     
     1             to rely upon other transactions as evidence of
     2             similar facts."
     3
     4        He then goes on about cross-examination as to credit.
     5        Then:
     6
     7             "In those circumstances it is extravagant to
     8             contend that evidence of other transactions
     9             (presumably involving other companies and other
    10             firms of accountants) would be admissible."
    11
    12        Obviously, we have not disavowed our intention to rely on
    13        the rest of what would be in the notes, which obviously is
    14        about the nature of the group.  So that would not apply in
    15        this case, either -- and obviously related to the consent
    16        of the agents.  I think that is basically it, actually.
    17
    18   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes.
    19
    20   MS. STEEL:   If I could just check my notes for a second?
    21        (Pause)  Just one other thing that was said about the
    22        notes of after 1990.  I do not know whether this would be a
    23        point or not, but I thought I ought to raise it, which is
    24        that Mr. Rampton said that they would not be relevant to
    25        any question arising in this action, but it just crossed my
    26        mind that, bearing in mind that Mr. Nicholson has actually
    27        given evidence that he did not know of the other inquiry
    28        agents or that there were any female inquiry agents or that
    29        it continued beyond 1991 -- sorry -- beyond January 1991,
    30        I do not know, are they relevant to that question about
    31        whether or not the evidence that Mr. Nicholson has given is
    32        actually accurate?
    33
    34   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Well -----
    35
    36   MS. STEEL:  I do not know.  I thought I ought to raise that.
    37
    38   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  You mean in relation to credibility? (Pause)
    39        The difficulty is the problems over adducing evidence to
    40        refute what someone said in relation to credibility, and if
    41        they were discoverable, it would be the question of you
    42        calling some evidence to that effect; so you would, in
    43        effect, be doing that which, essentially, you are not
    44        allowed to do, which is call evidence to discredit what
    45        someone has just said.  Do you remember, we had some
    46        authority about that before?
    47
    48   MS. STEEL:   Yes.  The only thing -- I do not know -- it just
    49        seemed it would be a bit different, bearing in mind that it
    50        is relevant to the issue of consent and the extent of 
    51        involvement in the group; and that was the reason why we 
    52        were asking Mr. Nicholson about this. 
    53
    54   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  You are back to whether it is relevant to
    55        those matters.
    56
    57   MS. STEEL:   OK.  All right.  I am virtually finished checking
    58        through my notes.  I think that is it.  Thank you.
    59
    60   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes.

Prev Next Index