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

Prev Next Index