Day 205 - 17 Jan 96 - Page 27


     
     1        allowed it.  Mr. Stein will know "yea" or "nay" whether it
     2        is true or false.  So we will deal with that in the same
     3        way but, as to the others, they have already been dealt
     4        with.
     5
     6        I do believe, if the Defendants want to make a case which,
     7        so far as we are aware, does not exist, they have to make
     8        the effort to do it.  It is not up to Mr. Stein to do more
     9        than he has already done.  I put it quite bluntly because
    10        we have made the effort to get the statement from Mr. Stein
    11        and Mr. Morris ought to be content with that so far as we
    12        are concerned.
    13
    14   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes.  Is there anything you want to say in
    15        reply, Ms. Steel or Mr. Morris?
    16
    17   MR. MORRIS:  I do not accept what Mr. Rampton says.  If he
    18        thinks that a voluntary statement of an official where he
    19        says that he has no personal knowledge of an incident and
    20        that the Company has no record is equivalent to answering
    21        an interrogatory where there is a legal obligation to
    22        pursue a fact, not just whether you have a record of
    23        something, if the Plaintiffs destroy their records relevant
    24        to a particular matter, it does not get them off the hook
    25        in answering an interrogatory on whether that matter is
    26        true or not, which is the whole point of and
    27        interrogatory.  Mr. Stein does not say they are not true.
    28        He says that the Corporation has no record of them.  His
    29        personal knowledge, of course, is not really here nor
    30        there.  That was not expected.
    31
    32        I am trying to check the White Book.  I cannot find the bit
    33        in the White Book which says what the obligation on the
    34        party being interrogated is.  I believe it is ---
    35
    36   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  There is a principle.
    37
    38   MR. MORRIS:  -- make all relevant enquiries.
    39
    40   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  No, there is a principle that interrogatories
    41        are usually refused where the information can be provided
    42        by other means.  What the Plaintiffs say they have done is
    43        provided the information by virtue of Mr. Stein's
    44        additional statement.  What is in Mr. Stein's additional
    45        statement is all that could be said in a sworn affidavit in
    46        reply to interrogatories anyway.
    47
    48   MR. MORRIS:  No.
    49
    50   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  He cannot say it did or did not happen; all 
    51        he can say is:  "I do not know of it and we have no records 
    52        of it". 
    53
    54   MR. MORRIS:  Somebody with a bit more experience than me must
    55        know whether the obligation on a party who is interrogated
    56        is to make all relevant enquiries or not, because it is
    57        clear that the only enquiries that Mr. Stein is admitting
    58        that he made is to find out if there are any records in the
    59        possession.  That is the word he uses, the possession; he
    60        does not even use possession, power or control because, of

Prev Next Index