Day 262 - 13 Jun 96 - Page 71


     
     1        responsible for the publication of the leaflet.
     2
     3   MR. HALL:  Yes, yes.
     4
     5   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  But the former one query:  Does it let in
     6        other reports received about that meeting or the event?  If
     7        the transaction is as broad as the latter, does it let in
     8        any notes or reports relating to the activities of
     9        London Greenpeace but biting on the activities of
    10        London Greenpeace in so far as they may relate to
    11        publication of the leaflet complained of?
    12
    13   MR. HALL:  My Lord, I would have to conceive that it is open to
    14        the interpretation that each attendance at a meeting by an
    15        agent, the majority of the notes would constitute a single
    16        separate transaction.  That is a possible interpretation.
    17        In my submission, it is also equally possible to hold that
    18        the relevant transaction is the instructing of the inquiry
    19        agent (the firm) and the receiving of reports or notes or
    20        information from them as a result of their inquiries.
    21
    22   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  That is what I was querying:  Whether it
    23        could ever possibly be an instruction to look into an event
    24        or a series of events, or whether the transaction must be
    25        the event or the series of events.
    26
    27   MR. HALL:  What most of the authorities that I have read have
    28        been at great pains to make clear is that whatever the
    29        ruling, the aim of a ruling in relation to privilege is to
    30        ensure a just result and that justice is done.  In the
    31        context of this case, and the nature of the documents that
    32        your Lordship is concerned with, it is my submission that
    33        the only appropriate interpretation of "transaction" is
    34        that the relevant transaction was the instructing of the
    35        inquiry agents in September/October 1989 and the continuing
    36        process of receiving reports from them over the months that
    37        followed.
    38
    39        I have given some thought to the word "transaction" and
    40        perhaps its inappropriateness in the context in which it
    41        has been used in other authorities.  The only other word or
    42        phrase that I could suggest as encompassing the intent
    43        behind the rulings and judgments that have been given is to
    44        substitute the phrase "course of conduct".  I say that
    45        partly with another authority in mind which the Plaintiffs
    46        have supplied previously, and that is the case of Lillicrap
    47        v. Nalder & Son.
    48
    49   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Where is that report?
    50 
    51   MR. HALL:  That is to be found reported in [1993] All England 
    52        Reports, Volume 1, at page 724.  In that case the 
    53        Plaintiffs were property developers who sued their
    54        solicitors for negligence.  It related to a land
    55        transaction and the property developers discovered that
    56        there was a right of way across land that they had bought,
    57        their solicitors having conducted the business in relation
    58        to the purchase of that land.  The defendants' firm of
    59        solicitors wished to rely, having eventually conceded
    60        negligence, on other transactions (I use the term in the

Prev Next Index