Day 205 - 17 Jan 96 - Page 22
1 them and do prove them successfully, then you have an
2 argument that the other side should pay all the costs of
3 proving those issues. But that is the full extent of it,
4 as I understand notice to admit facts. Interrogatories are
5 another matter.
6
7 So, the notice to admit facts is really a way of trying to
8 avoid you calling evidence to prove those facts with a view
9 to saving time and cost.
10
11 MR. MORRIS: Right. I see.
12
13 MR. JUSTICE BELL: From the practical point of view, that is the
14 distinction between the notice to admit facts and the
15 interrogatories, where the party upon whom you served the
16 interrogatories under the rules has to answer them, unless
17 they take objection within 14 days or such longer time as
18 I may give for objection. It seems to me here that,
19 although I do not know, maybe 14 days have gone since the
20 interrogatories were served, in a case of this length, I
21 would extend the time to make any other application to set
22 aside the interrogatories to the Plaintiffs and get down to
23 what the real point is, should they answer the
24 interrogatories or not.
25
26 MR. MORRIS: That is the next point. I mean, I suppose I could
27 put the notice to admit facts down to the interrogatories,
28 but I did not realise they were not a similar status to
29 that.
30
31 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Do not worry about that. You understand what
32 the position is now. It is the interrogatories that you
33 want to concentrate on. There is no harm in trying a
34 notice to admit facts, but if there is just a deathly
35 silence, then that is that, until any question of costs
36 arises and you want to concentrate on your interrogatories.
37
38 MR. MORRIS: I will just make a note. Yes, I mean, in any case,
39 we have issued a Civil Evidence Act notice on Stan Stein's
40 testimony which has not been challenged. So we can rely on
41 that in any event, the statement he made under oath, the
42 sections that we have identified. So, coming on to these
43 interrogatories ------
44
45 MR. RAMPTON: My Lord, can I say something about this before
46 Mr. Morris goes on? I did mention it the other day.
47 Mr. Morris, as usual, has ignored what I said. Can I ask
48 your Lordship to look at Ord. 26, r. 3?
49
50 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Do you have a copy of the White Book?
51
52 MR. RAMPTON: It is very short. I will read it out and that
53 will save time, I hope. Ord. 26 r. 3, of the Rules of the
54 Supreme Court, and it is r. 3(i) which matters:
55 "Interrogatories without order may be served on a party
56 not more than twice". My Lord, the Defendants have served
57 interrogatories without order and on the third occasion
58 without objection from me on 6th July 1993, 29th April 1994
59 and 13th May 1994. That last one they strictly needed
60 leave for.
