Day 164 - 26 Sep 95 - Page 48


     
     1        anti-McDonald's campaign run by the group over the period
     2        of years which these notes cover, and the Defendants'
     3        involvement in the activities of the group generally.  As a
     4        consequence of that we disclosed all the parts of the notes
     5        which we thought bore on those issues, all the Defendants'
     6        attendance at meetings, the contributions which they have
     7        made to those meetings and all references to McDonald's,
     8        whether they helped us or whether they did not.
     9
    10   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  So if they made a contribution to the meeting
    11        according to the Enquiry Agent's notes, albeit it was not
    12        on McDonald's, that would be ----
    13
    14   MR. RAMPTON:  That is right.  We have left in all records of
    15        their attendance and all records of their contribution,
    16        even where, as sometimes happened, Mr. Morris' contribution
    17        was by telephone.  He was not actually at the meeting.  In
    18        effect, all references to the Defendants and all references
    19        to McDonald's have been left in.  What we have not
    20        disclosed, and we believe rightly because they are
    21        irrelevant to any issue in the action, are those parts of
    22        the notes which concern other activities of the group which
    23        have nothing to do with McDonald's and the identities by
    24        and large, although sometimes following the Court of
    25        Appeal's ruling we had to leave in names and identities and
    26        telephone numbers of other people, but by and large we have
    27        also excluded the identities of people other than the
    28        Defendants who were involved in activities other than the
    29        anti-McDonald's campaign and not in the anti-McDonald's
    30        campaign, which seems to us to be irrelevant.
    31
    32        True it is that if we left in those parts Ms. Steel might
    33        be able to use those parts as a weapon in cross-examination
    34        to discredit the integrity of the notes as a whole.  That,
    35        however, on authority is not a ground for discovery.
    36
    37   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Could you just pause a moment, Mr. Rampton?
    38
    39   MR. RAMPTON:  In other words, we have excluded all material
    40        which, though it might go to credit, might, or the
    41        credibility, as your Lordship put it, of the notes, has no
    42        bearing, no relevance direct or indirect to the issues in
    43        this action.
    44
    45   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  What is the authority you rely on?
    46
    47   MR. RAMPTON:  For the credit?
    48
    49   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes.
    50 
    51   MR. RAMPTON:  It is well it is noted at 24/8/2 on page 462 of 
    52        the White Book under Order 24 Rule 8.  It says: "As in the 
    53        case of interrogatories, discovery is solely for the
    54        purpose of impeaching the credit of the opposite party and
    55        giving him a bad name will not be relevant. It probably
    56        does not relate to the matter in question, but in any event
    57        should be refused as a matter of discretion under this
    58        rule."
    59
    60        There is a case cited there called Ballantine (George) &

Prev Next Index