Day 124 - 10 May 95 - Page 41


     
     1        this should have been disclosed as soon you had had time to
     2        read it.
     3
     4   MR. MORRIS:  We had to consider whether we wanted to raise it,
     5        whether it was relevant.
     6
     7   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  No, it does not matter whether you want to
     8        raise it.  Surely by now you realise the whole point of
     9        discovery in this country is that if a document is
    10        relevant, subject to certain other exceptions none of which
    11        applies to this document, if it is relevant as soon as you
    12        appreciate that, you have to disclose it.  I am not
    13        concerned myself about this coming in now.  It is one short
    14        paragraph you have put.  It may be a basis for adding Hong
    15        Kong to the Philippines and Turkey.  It may not.  I do not
    16        suppose that is going to break the back of this case one
    17        way or the other.  What alarms me slightly is that there
    18        can be an argument that when Mr. Beavers started giving
    19        evidence again on Tuesday, and assuming that a few days ago
    20        was before Tuesday, and assuming that you read it before
    21        Tuesday, and assuming that you thought you might want to
    22        ask him about it, you did not just hand a copy to
    23        Mrs. Brinley-Codd on Tuesday morning.  I am not worried
    24        about this document.  I do want you to take on board that
    25        whatever criticism you may make of McDonald's, justified or
    26        otherwise, you have to accept that you must disclose these
    27        documents when you get them.
    28
    29   MS. STEEL:  We do our best to disclose things as soon as
    30        possible.  If this document was relevant, the Plaintiffs
    31        should have disclosed it themselves.
    32
    33   MR. MORRIS:  It is clearly relevant because it contradicts the
    34        evidence they have given about Turkey and the Philippines,
    35        for a start.
    36
    37   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Do bear in mind what I have just said.
    38
    39   MR. MORRIS:  I think we should bear in mind that Helen had not
    40        actually read it, so in fact it should not even have been
    41        disclosed today.
    42
    43   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  It should because you are party to this
    44        action, and you are a separate party, much in harness
    45        though you may conduct the case, and the moment you
    46        realised it was relevant and you might want to use it -- by
    47        all means give her a copy straightaway, so Ms. Steel can
    48        read it as well, but it has to be disclosed to the other
    49        side.  There is no rule by which separate parties, whose
    50        interest is the same, have to consult each other, or, 
    51        indeed, are entitled to take the time to do so, before they 
    52        decide whether to disclose a document, discoverable or not. 
    53
    54   MS. STEEL:  I am quite sure the Plaintiffs discuss things with
    55        their legal advisors and with each other's executives
    56        before they decide which documents to disclose.
    57
    58   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  It is not just a question of comparisons, it
    59        is question whether a document is discoverable and
    60        discoverable promptly or not.  Carry on now.  Leave this

Prev Next Index