Day 205 - 17 Jan 96 - Page 28
1 course, they would have power and control over documents
2 from their franchisees.
3
4 So, in my view, his statement voluntarily made is
5 deliberately avoiding ascertaining the facts on these
6 important matters. Really, it is wasting court time to
7 have to do an interrogatory when Mr. Stein could have made
8 diligent enquiries in general. But, as far as I can see
9 also, one thing I have found in the White Book under
10 Ord. 26 r. 5/3, the third paragraph in that section: "If
11 an answer is embarrassing or is so involved and so
12 insufficient in the particular statement as to be incapable
13 of being used, this is actually an interrogatory, if the
14 Plaintiffs are saying that this is, effectively, what an
15 interrogatory would do, it would justify a further order
16 for further information.
17
18 The statement of Mr. Stein voluntarily made is basically so
19 insufficient that it cannot be used. It will not help the
20 court one way or another to know whether or not the
21 Plaintiffs now have no records of incidents as to whether
22 they are true or not. Obviously, they are true as far as
23 I can see, otherwise, unless the New York Times (whatever
24 it was) was completely manufacturing the whole series of
25 citations, it is just absurd, you know, even though it is.
26
27 So, the point is the Plaintiffs clearly, by any common
28 sense yardstick, should have to ascertain within their own
29 ability the facts, and that is the point of the
30 interrogatory. As has been said, a voluntary statement or
31 a notice to admit does not have the same weight of
32 obligation on the Company.
33
34 I cannot find in the White Book, though, where the
35 obligation of the Company is laid out, but I would believe
36 in previous applications that it is to make all relevant
37 inquiries, not just to see if a current record exists of
38 something.
39
40 I do not believe the Plaintiffs, if they have nothing to
41 hide, should worry about having to answer some
42 interrogatories. I am trying to check the White Book.
43
44 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Are you thinking of 26/2/2, on page 497?
45
46 MR. MORRIS: Yes, and 26/2/1 as well, because also whoever the
47 most suitable person is also an issue.
48
49 MR. JUSTICE BELL: But the point which I think is being taken
50 against you is that a very large corporation like the First
51 Plaintiff, the way you make these inquiries is, you ask the
52 person who has some responsibility for it (which is
53 Mr. Stein) and then he instigates some search for records.
54 He does not go round asking everyone who might had some
55 personal knowledge of it, not in a large corporation. If
56 it was a small firm of 12 employees, it might be
57 different. That is what he has done; and that, really, all
58 he has said in his statement is what would be a sufficient
59 answer to interrogatories.
60
