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
