Day 313 - 13 Dec 96 - Page 34


     
     1   MS. STEEL:   No, the point was that they handed them up and
     2        thereby waived their privilege in relation to those
     3        documents and, obviously, all the connected documents which
     4        are their files on this case.  So, we believe that we are
     5        therefore entitled to copies of the entire files.
     6
     7   MR. RAMPTON:  I really do not know who the Defendants have been
     8        speaking to.  An attendance note recording an inter-parties
     9        conversation between solicitors is in no different case
    10        from correspondence, and the authority for that is a case
    11        called Parry v News Group Newspapers, 1990 140 New Law
    12        Journal page 1719.  It is absolutely baffling, this
    13        application, in fact, if it had been important I would have
    14        asked your Lordship to look at the attendance notes because
    15        that is what they are, they are oral correspondence.
    16
    17   MS. STEEL:   They are not all reports of hearings, they are also
    18        reports of 'phone conversations, and so on, between
    19        solicitors.
    20
    21   MR. JUSTICE BELL: I see nothing which has waived all Barlows
    22        files in relation to this case.  If you want the attendance
    23        notes to go back in, let them go back in, because I need
    24        not bother myself about waiver or matters of law, what that
    25        would amount to is that both sides agreed that they should
    26        go in, and I will look at anything which both sides have
    27        agreed that I should see.
    28
    29   MS. STEEL:   Certainly, if they went in then the whole file
    30        should be disclosed.
    31
    32   MR. JUSTICE BELL: You must make up your mind.  I am not looking
    33        at the attendance notes unless you ask me to.  If you want
    34        me to look at the attendance notes they will go back in,
    35        but there is no question of waiver of a whole file.
    36
    37   MS. STEEL:   Well, not, because these attendance notes are
    38        inaccurate and that is why we believe that if they were in
    39        we would be entitled to the whole file.
    40
    41   MR. JUSTICE BELL: If you say they are inaccurate, I am not going
    42        to look at them.  I will look at the inter-parties
    43        correspondence in that clip, and that is all.
    44
    45   MS. STEEL:   Right.  The other matter which I wish to clear up
    46        before I forget about it.  I mean, this should have come up
    47        under advertising but this is something that I think has
    48        probably got lost in this case, but it is something that we
    49        do want to rely on as evidence, which was a notice which
    50        I served on 22nd June 1994 that we wished to use the
    51        following statement as evidence under the Civil Evidence
    52        Act.  The statement is, "In McDonald's Land there is a
    53        hamburger patch".  The story opens with Ronald harvesting
    54        the hamburgers bushes from the hamburger patch.
    55
    56   MR. JUSTICE BELL: What is the document?
    57
    58   MS. STEEL:   Hold on. "We feel that the children have a great
    59        deal of influence on..."
    60

Prev Next Index