Day 263 - 14 Jun 96 - Page 23


     
     1
     2                          (Short Adjournment)
     3
     4   MS. STEEL:  I will try and do it fairly quickly.  We are still
     5        on GE Capital, of course.  You have not got the same copy
     6        we have got; it is quite hard to describe where it is.  We
     7        are still in Hoffman L.J..
     8
     9   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes.
    10
    11   MS. STEEL:   Going down from where we just were, after the next
    12        indented part, there is a paragraph starting: "The
    13        inference I draw from this quotation" -- yes?
    14
    15   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes.
    16
    17   MS. STEEL:  "....is that the missing words deal with the
    18             shortcomings of the accountants in the other
    19             transaction.  How can this, or the name of the
    20             party involved, be relevant to the issues in
    21             this case?"
    22
    23        Then there is a discussion about how the other side are
    24        saying they would be relevant.  Then Hoffman L.J.
    25        continues:
    26
    27             "In my view there is no reason to think that the
    28             omitted passages would begin to support such a
    29             defence.  The document already reveals that
    30             someone at GE thought that Magnet and another
    31             transaction showed that it was desirable to
    32             improve due diligence procedures.  I cannot see
    33             how the name of the other transaction or the
    34             alleged deficiencies of a different accountant's
    35             report can be relevant."
    36
    37        Then there is another sentence which does not particularly
    38        matter.  Then:
    39
    40             "It is, in my judgment, inconceivable that the
    41             judge at the trial will be willing to admit
    42             evidence of collateral transactions, by way of
    43             similar facts, to lead to an inference that GE
    44             was negligent in this one."
    45
    46        I would just say that it seems, from the way that this is
    47        expressed, you can see the way that they are thinking, that
    48        the matter is not going to be anything that is actually
    49        going to turn out to be of use in the trial, because it is
    50        either similar facts which they are not allowed to rely on 
    51        or, you know, there is enough in the document already to 
    52        show the picture. 
    53
    54   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  It is back to relevance.
    55
    56   MS. STEEL:   Yes, OK.  Obviously, we would argue that in our
    57        case what is blanked out is actually the opposite.  It is
    58        showing the opposite picture about, you know, the other
    59        things that were going on in the meeting which helped to
    60        give the overall picture.  They are not saying the same

Prev Next Index