Day 205 - 17 Jan 96 - Page 22


     
     1        them and do prove them successfully, then you have an
     2        argument that the other side should pay all the costs of
     3        proving those issues.  But that is the full extent of it,
     4        as I understand notice to admit facts.  Interrogatories are
     5        another matter.
     6
     7        So, the notice to admit facts is really a way of trying to
     8        avoid you calling evidence to prove those facts with a view
     9        to saving time and cost.
    10
    11   MR. MORRIS:  Right.  I see.
    12
    13   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  From the practical point of view, that is the
    14        distinction between the notice to admit facts and the
    15        interrogatories, where the party upon whom you served the
    16        interrogatories under the rules has to answer them, unless
    17        they take objection within 14 days or such longer time as
    18        I may give for objection.  It seems to me here that,
    19        although I do not know, maybe 14 days have gone since the
    20        interrogatories were served, in a case of this length, I
    21        would extend the time to make any other application to set
    22        aside the interrogatories to the Plaintiffs and get down to
    23        what the real point is, should they answer the
    24        interrogatories or not.
    25
    26   MR. MORRIS:  That is the next point.  I mean, I suppose I could
    27        put the notice to admit facts down to the interrogatories,
    28        but I did not realise they were not a similar status to
    29        that.
    30
    31   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Do not worry about that.  You understand what
    32        the position is now.  It is the interrogatories that you
    33        want to concentrate on.  There is no harm in trying a
    34        notice to admit facts, but if there is just a deathly
    35        silence, then that is that, until any question of costs
    36        arises and you want to concentrate on your interrogatories.
    37
    38   MR. MORRIS:  I will just make a note.  Yes, I mean, in any case,
    39        we have issued a Civil Evidence Act notice on Stan Stein's
    40        testimony which has not been challenged.  So we can rely on
    41        that in any event, the statement he made under oath, the
    42        sections that we have identified.  So, coming on to these
    43        interrogatories ------
    44
    45   MR. RAMPTON:  My Lord, can I say something about this before
    46        Mr. Morris goes on?  I did mention it the other day.
    47        Mr. Morris, as usual, has ignored what I said.  Can I ask
    48        your Lordship to look at Ord. 26, r. 3?
    49
    50   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Do you have a copy of the White Book? 
    51 
    52   MR. RAMPTON:  It is very short.  I will read it out and that 
    53        will save time, I hope.  Ord. 26 r. 3, of the Rules of the
    54        Supreme Court, and it is r. 3(i) which matters:
    55        "Interrogatories without order may be served on a party
    56        not more than twice".  My Lord, the Defendants have served
    57        interrogatories without order and on the third occasion
    58        without objection from me on 6th July 1993, 29th April 1994
    59        and 13th May 1994.  That last one they strictly needed
    60        leave for.

Prev Next Index