Day 164 - 26 Sep 95 - Page 52


     
     1        report I will give you which is reports of patent cases, is
     2        it?  It is the one I got wrong before and was corrected on,
     3        RPC.
     4
     5   MR. RAMPTON:  It is patent cases.
     6
     7   MS. STEEL:  Of what?
     8
     9   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  1975 RPC Reports of Patent Cases 111, but
    10        will you find it far easier to get hold of a Weekly Law
    11        Report or the All England Law report than you will of a
    12        report of patent cases.
    13
    14   MR. RAMPTON:  My Lord, the other case -- I have one letter
    15        wrong, I confess -- this is read from Style and Hollander,
    16        Documentary Evidence, published by Longman in 1993, page
    17        121, the second paragraph:  "Discovery will not be ordered
    18        on matters which would go solely to cross-examination as to
    19        credit".  Thorpe v. Chief Constable of Greater Manchester,
    20        1989 1 WLR 665 and 669, and old case Kennedy v. Dodson,
    21        1895 1 Chancery 334.  Then it goes on, it is right I read
    22        it:  "The Application of this rule" -----
    23
    24   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  What was the Chancery case?
    25
    26   MR. RAMPTON:  Kennedy v. Dodson, 1895 1 Chancery 334.  It goes
    27        on:  "The application of this rule may not be as
    28        straightforward as the principle.  In a fraud action the
    29        Defendant's state of mind is an issue in the case and
    30        documents which are relevant to this are relevant to an
    31        issue in the case and not merely as cross-examination
    32        material."   The authors have written that.  I should not
    33        have thought that was not anything other than blindingly
    34        obvious, to be quite honest, with respect.   My Lord, we
    35        will bring Thorpe along tomorrow.
    36
    37   MS. STEEL:  If it is worth mentioning now, that the Thorpe case
    38        is mentioned in the White Book on page 438, Ord. 24 r. 2.
    39
    40   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Sorry, page?
    41
    42   MS. STEEL:   It is page 438 at the top, the second paragraph.
    43        That was talking about that the Plaintiff was not entitled
    44        to discovery of documents containing adjudications of guilt
    45        in police disciplinary proceedings against police officers
    46        allegedly involved in the Plaintiff's arrest and detention
    47        since the documents are not probative of the conduct
    48        alleged".  Then it says:  "The Court should not order
    49        discovery on matters which go solely to cross-examination
    50        or as to similar fact transactions where such discovery 
    51        would be oppressive and where evidence of such transactions 
    52        is not admissible."  I do not really think that it could be 
    53        argued that it would be oppressive to unblank pages of
    54        documents.
    55
    56   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  We will have to look at the case.
    57
    58   MR. RAMPTON:  We will have to look at the case but, in a sense,
    59        that citation makes my point, I think.  Anyhow, if the
    60        authorities do not support what I have said, they do not,

Prev Next Index