Day 262 - 13 Jun 96 - Page 76
1
2 In addition to that it might be argued, and it is not clear
3 whether they have been used in this way in this case
4 although they are capable of being used in this way, they
5 are capable of being memory-refreshing documents because
6 they were written shortly after the incident of what they
7 purport to describe. Therefore, it might be thought to
8 form a record of what happened. In the same way, perhaps,
9 if there had been a photographer present at the meetings
10 and a photograph had been taken and maybe not developed
11 until two to three years later, the photograph itself might
12 be disclosable, even though it is only produced in the
13 context of a statement where it is referred to as an
14 exhibit.
15
16 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes, thank you.
17
18 Mr. Morris, time is getting on. I suggest you let Mr. Hall
19 say as much as he can and then we will have to adjourn for
20 tonight and you and Ms. Steel can add anything you want to
21 in the morning.
22
23 MR. HALL: There is one more point I think I ought to cover ---
24
25 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes.
26
27 MR. HALL: -- subject to anything that Ms. Steel and Mr. Morris
28 want me to deal with. It is a fairly brief point and it is
29 this. I am here referring to not all the notes and all the
30 reports, I am referring specifically to those notes that
31 have been disclosed where passages have been omitted and
32 the claim that that is on grounds of relevance.
33
34 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes.
35
36 MR. HALL: In my submission, the most helpful authority on this
37 is the Great Atlantic case.
38
39 MR. JUSTICE BELL: What is the reference there?
40
41 MR. HALL: It is to be found reported in [1981] Weekly Law
42 Reports, page 529.
43
44 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes. I do not have that now. What I suggest
45 is give me the references and you read and then I will look
46 at it in my room.
47
48 MR. HALL: So be it. Great Atlantic Insurance Company v. Home
49 Insurance Company & Ors., [1981] W.L.R., page 529.
50
51 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes.
52
53 MR. HALL: Reading from the headnote it was held, dismissing the
54 appeal:
55
56 "... that the whole of the memorandum, being a
57 communication to the plaintiffs from their legal
58 advisers, was privileged....; that the
59 memorandum dealt with a single subject matter
60 and so was not capable of being divided into two
