Day 262 - 13 Jun 96 - Page 60
1 at quarter to four, by all means you carry on trying to
2 make your arrangements. I am quite prepared to sit a bit
3 late, but I suggest Mr. Hall goes on without you, rather
4 than risk him not finishing this evening.
5
6 (Short Adjournment)
7
8 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes.
9
10 MR. HALL: Your Lordship, I understand the Plaintiffs to be
11 asserting privilege in relation to notes of seven people,
12 some of whom are going to be witnesses, made at various
13 meetings, and, following the making of those notes, reports
14 or some of the reports that were drafted in connection with
15 those meetings.
16
17 As I now understand it, it is accepted that, in relation to
18 the reports that have been disclosed, there is no claim to
19 privilege.
20
21 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I think the way it is put, they would have
22 been privileged but, having made it clear that the witness
23 was to be called rather than wait to deploy his evidence,
24 it was convenient to waive the privilege in respect of
25 their notes of the occasions in relation to which they were
26 going to give evidence in advance, to avoid delay.
27
28 MR. HALL: That was my original understanding. Listening to
29 Mr. Rampton, it appeared there was no claim to privilege in
30 relation to the reports that have been disclosed. If I am
31 wrong on that -- I see him shaking his head -- then I will
32 adjust my argument accordingly.
33
34 MR. RAMPTON: If I gave that impression, it is not one
35 I intended to give. The whole material is
36 prima facie -----
37
38 MR. HALL: Then I shall work on that basis.
39
40 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes.
41
42 MR. HALL: Your Lordship, the first matter, in my respectful
43 submission, which it would be appropriate for you to
44 consider is whether or not there is a relationship that
45 exists concerning which privilege could be claimed. This
46 is a point which is related to the dominant purpose, as
47 will be seen, but is slightly different; and I will go on
48 to dominant purpose as the second point. But, in relation
49 to this first point, I would invite your Lordship to look
50 at the case of Jones v. Great Central Railway Company
51 [1910] A.C., 4.
52
53 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes.
54
55 MR. HALL: It is a fairly short report, and it concerns a member
56 of a trade union who had been dismissed and who wrote
57 documents for his union for them to decide whether or not
58 to instruct solicitors. It was held in that case that the
59 letters containing the information did not fall within the
60 established rule as to the privilege between solicitor and
