Day 262 - 13 Jun 96 - Page 73
1 relevant". I accept it is possible to distinguish it in
2 that way. But if one looks at all the authorities, they
3 deal with such a wide range of specialised areas of law
4 that if the general principles that were enunciated in each
5 of them, the authorities that only apply to those
6 specialised areas, we would not have a body of law relating
7 to the privilege issue.
8
9 The issue that this particular authority highlights is that
10 a series of transactions, not immediately connected with
11 the issue before the court and not privileged -- whatever
12 effect or weight they may carry with the court is, of
13 course, a different matter -- but so far as the issue of
14 privilege is concerned, there can be a series unconnected
15 with particular issues before the court which are not
16 privileged. In my respectful submission, even if privilege
17 attaches to some of the documents -- for example, the ones
18 where it has been waived because the Plaintiffs are relying
19 upon those witnesses to give evidence -- in relation to the
20 other three witnesses, one of which has not been named,
21 because they would form a series of transactions, if the
22 waiver of the privilege fatally damages the Plaintiffs'
23 claim to privilege in relation to other matters, then the
24 fact that there is a series of transactions (as it has been
25 termed) of the same nature would, in my respectful
26 submission, mean that they lose their claim to privilege in
27 relation to those documents.
28
29 There is another authority of relevance to this issue. It
30 is In re Konigsberg, which is also in the Plaintiffs'
31 bundle. It can be found reported in [1989] 1 W.L.R. 1257.
32
33 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Which case is that?
34
35 MR. RAMPTON: In re Konigsberg. I do not know if your Lordship
36 has that one either. I am sorry, I have not done my usual
37 thing of providing copies. The Defendants have got them,
38 but somehow it did not get to your Lordship.
39 Mrs. Brinley-Codd certainly has got it.
40
41 MR. MORRIS: I have a spare copy if you want to hand one up.
42
43 MR. JUSTICE BELL: What is the reference because it may be in
44 court?
45
46 MR. HALL: It is reported in [1989] W.L.R.
47
48 MR. RAMPTON: Volume 1, 1257. It starts at the bottom.
49
50 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes. Mr. Riley, I am sorry; we do have
51 another copy after all. (Handed).
52
53 MR. HALL: This case concerns the joint ownership of a
54 matrimonial home by a husband and wife, but the husband was
55 declared bankrupt and transferred the property to the wife
56 on various terms. The trustee sought recovery. There was
57 one solicitor involved for the husband and wife, and a
58 letter was sent to the solicitor from the wife claiming not
59 to have understood the terms on which the property had been
60 transferred to her.
