Day 157 - 18 Jul 95 - Page 54


     
     1        Taylor v. Taylor in 1970, although there was some doubt
     2        whether his summing up ----
     3
     4   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I had in mind one which I thought was
     5        reported within the last few months, and although as the
     6        years pass the last few months often turns out to be two or
     7        three years ago ---
     8
     9   MR. RAMPTON:  Not 25 years.
    10
    11   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  -- I did not think it was right back in 1970.
    12
    13   MR. RAMPTON:  That is the only one I could find in Phipson, but
    14        your Lordship may well be right, there may have been a more
    15        recent one, not the one in 1989.  Perhaps one can approach
    16        the matter another way by asking the question: What is the
    17        purpose and function of the process of discovery in a civil
    18        action?
    19
    20   MR. MORRIS:  Sorry, that Taylor v. Taylor, is there a copy
    21        available of that?
    22
    23   MR. RAMPTON:  No, not here.
    24
    25   MR. MORRIS:  Have you got a more detailed reference for it
    26        then?  Is it appeal courts?
    27
    28   MR. RAMPTON:  No, I do not think so.
    29
    30   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  It is the 1970 one, is it?
    31
    32   MR. RAMPTON:  I think it is 1970 All England Reports, yes.
    33
    34   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  2, All England, 609 or 1 WLR 1148, but there
    35        is also 1971 Taylor and 1967 and 65 Taylor v. Taylor.
    36
    37   MR. RAMPTON:  My Lord, I thought I had copies of a passage from
    38        Halsbury Laws.  I do not seem to have it at the moment.
    39        Could I ask your Lordship to indulge me a moment?
    40
    41   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes.  This is 2213 of Phipson, in Taylor v.
    42        Taylor the reference given being 1972 All England Reports
    43        609 at 614.  "It was said that the transcript of evidence
    44        in previous criminal proceedings were admissible under both
    45        section 2 and section 4", that is the Civil Evidence Act
    46        1968.  "But it was suggested that the judge's summing up
    47        would be admissible under section 4 only".
    48
    49   MR. RAMPTON:  The reason for that, my Lord, that it would be
    50        multiple hearsay probably what the judge ----- 
    51 
    52   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Because section 2 talks of admitting the 
    53        statement where direct oral evidence could be given by the
    54        witness and the judge would be unable to give evidence in
    55        the latter proceedings.
    56
    57   MR. RAMPTON:  But he might be thought a person acting under a
    58        duty and, therefore, he would fall within section 4.
    59
    60   MR. MORRIS:  Was that Taylor v. Taylor 1972?

Prev Next Index