Day 280 - 17 Jul 96 - Page 20
1 it does. In fact, it is to do with actions between, a
2 previous action, as far as I can see, between the Plaintiff
3 and the third party and the third party is then entitled to
4 rely on anything favourable in that action, given the
5 subsequent third party proceedings.
6
7 That is very small point, but it is just something
8 mentioned in the skeleton argument and I only put it
9 forward tentatively as a sort of friend of the Court.
10
11 The further point I would make is that the proper time
12 for any proceedings would be after judgment when your
13 Lordship has determined the question, as your Lordship will
14 have to, of the degree of participation and the sort of
15 conduct undertaken by the private investigators. At that
16 time we will all know what your Lordship thinks about that,
17 and if your Lordship decides that the private investigators
18 were heavily liable for -- sorry, were heavily
19 participating in the activities of the group, then it may
20 well be that the Plaintiffs could then bring contribution
21 proceedings. I say 'may well be' because I am not going to
22 go into the question of reading the Civil Liability
23 Contribution Act which, as I say, is somewhat dense,
24 whether they would, in fact, be able to pursue the private
25 investigators or not, but I assume for these purposes they
26 would be able to go after them.
27
28 In those circumstances, the private investigators then
29 look at the judgment and then they can say, "Well, if it is
30 overwhelmingly against us we will settle the case. If it
31 is not overwhelmingly against us they can fight the case",
32 but not at the expense of the Plaintiffs, because the
33 Plaintiffs would feel bound -- and your Lordship would
34 probably think this reasonable -- would feel bound in any
35 third party proceedings to be attending those third party
36 proceeding to make sure that the proper facts were before
37 the Court and to decide as to whether it in any way
38 affected the Plaintiffs' position. They would not have to
39 do that, that contribution proceedings, the fact that the
40 Plaintiffs have to be there would be expensive as well as,
41 of course, delaying the judgment in this case.
42
43 Inevitably it would, my Lord, because we have closing
44 speeches to do. We have the question of getting any
45 further statements in relation to proving documents. The
46 Defendants have closing speeches to make. All of this is
47 going to put both sides off getting on with doing their
48 closing speeches and finishing this case, and this case
49 ought to be finished sooner rather than later.
50
51 So the proper time to have made this application was
52 at the very latest March of this year. I would go further
53 and say that from the very first statements it was clear
54 that the private investigators had attended meetings, and I
55 have no doubt that the Defendants were curious about what
56 the private investigators had done and went back and either
57 thought about it themselves or asked other people.
58 Certainly, if that was not done immediately it would have
59 been done by May of 1995 because Mr. Pocklington in his
60 second statement actually refers to letters on the 29th
