Day 280 - 17 Jul 96 - Page 21
1 November, 1989 going out, and if one, I think, looks at his
2 notes you begin to see that he had some involvement in
3 that.
4
5 So, it is quite clear that the Defendants ought to
6 have done it earlier, and any proceedings against the
7 private investigators the proper time for that is later
8 rather than earlier. It is after the judgment of your
9 Lordship when everyone knows where they are and can decide,
10 probably with a great saving of costs, can decide, whether
11 or not those contribution proceedings are worth pursuing.
12 And it is said, Oh, well, the contribution proceedings
13 would be more of a strain for the Defendants than third
14 party proceedings. The fact is, if third party proceedings
15 are going to be fair they have got to be all on the same
16 lines as any contribution proceedings would be, so I cannot
17 really see there is any greater strain on the Defendants.
18
19
20 I will just check, my Lord, whether there is anything
21 finally.
22
23 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes. I would like your help on the point I
24 put to Mr. Starmer as to whether there realistically is any
25 claim for contribution anyway in the circumstances of this
26 case, because these are third party proceedings based on,
27 or would be based on, a suggestion that the inquiry agents
28 are jointly liable to your clients.
29
30 MR. ATKINSON: Yes.
31
32 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Can they be liable to your clients on any
33 construction of the evidence when you have, through Mr.
34 Nicholson, the Plaintiff's solicitors, put the inquiry
35 agents in to infiltrate with all that might be reasonably
36 expected to follow from that?
37
38 MR. ATKINSON: Can I make two points on that?
39
40 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes.
41
42 MR. ATKINSON: The first is I do not want to say any higher
43 than it is likely arguable because I do not want to
44 prejudice anything Mr. Rampton says in his closing speeches
45 on this because it has not been thought about carefully
46 enough, but I would say it is highly arguable that insofar
47 as 'A' does an act on the instructions of 'B' which is
48 damaging to 'B', it seems to me that it might be a little
49 odd that 'B' could then say, "'A' I am going sue you", and
50 I think, in fact, I have read in the White Book that 'A'
51 might well be able to come back and say, "Well, even if
52 this is the case I must have some form of indemnity", or
53 whatever. But forgetting that, it would be very odd
54 indeed, but I only want to put that as highly arguable. I
55 do not want to make any concession on that.
56
57 The second point is just to say that just because a
58 private investigator on a particular occasion has handed
59 out one of the leaflets or whatever, or, if one puts it
60 higher, has in some way participated, it might be the case
