Day 262 - 13 Jun 96 - Page 69
1 would not necessarily be the dominant purpose.
2
3 MR. JUSTICE BELL: That is why I pointed out what Lord Justice
4 Oliver said, because the only reason prescribed to them in
5 commissioning the report was ascertaining whether, as they
6 suspected, it had been fraudulently started by the
7 insured. It was entirely clear that if the claim was
8 persisted in and if it was resisted, litigation would
9 inevitably follow. The claim had been made. Yes, I see.
10
11 MR. HALL: Yes.
12
13 MR. JUSTICE BELL: One of the ironies of this case is it is
14 Ms. Steel's and Mr. Morris' case that the Plaintiffs are
15 writ happy and issued writs without making prior approaches
16 to those who they thought were responsible for allegedly
17 defamatory material.
18
19 MR. HALL: Yes, I understand that to have been put, but it is
20 also the Plaintiffs' case that that is not correct - at
21 least it has been up until this argument concerning
22 dominant purpose.
23
24 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes. Is there anything more in Highgate
25 Traders?
26
27 MR. HALL: Nothing that I can find of assistance that is not
28 better put in other authorities.
29
30 MR. JUSTICE BELL: No, thank you.
31
32 MR. HALL: May I move on now to privilege and partial
33 disclosure. That is all I really wish to say about
34 dominant purpose.
35
36 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes, thank you.
37
38 MR. HALL: I would ask your Lordship to consider the case of
39 General Accident v. Tanter.
40
41 MR. JUSTICE BELL: What was the reference to that again?
42
43 MR. HALL: That, my Lord, is [1984] 1 W.L.R. 100.
44
45 MR. JUSTICE BELL: 1984?
46
47 MR. HALL: Yes.
48
49 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I am just querying where it has gone. Do
50 I actually have that?
51
52 MR. RAMPTON: Your Lordship had it, I hope. It is one of mine.
53
54 MR. HALL: It should be in the Plaintiffs' bundle.
55
56 MR. RAMPTON: I do not know if there is an actual bundle.
57
58 MR. JUSTICE BELL: [1984] 1 W.L.R..
59
60 MR. RAMPTON: I gave your Lordship the pages. I do not know if
