Day 246 - 09 May 96 - Page 12


     
     1        which made lead to the obtaining of such evidence are
     2        privileged".  I cannot see that this document, and all the
     3        documents in this particular bundle, would fall into that
     4        category.  They are not.  They are between Scope and
     5        McDonald's, not between the solicitors, because it talks
     6        about communications between a solicitor and a
     7        non-professional agent or third party.  This is not between
     8        the solicitor, this is between the Plaintiff and a third
     9        party.  It is not a document made for the purposes of
    10        obtaining or giving advice, legal advice, or for obtaining
    11        or collecting evidence, or for obtaining information which
    12        may lead to the obtaining of such evidence.  It is a
    13        document about what public relations strategy to follow.
    14
    15        The second part that Mr. Rampton read out ----
    16
    17   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  He relies on the first one.
    18
    19   MS. STEEL:   He relies on the first one, OK.  I would say that
    20        clearly reading that, the document just does not fall into
    21        that category.
    22
    23   MR. MORRIS:  Yes, I just underline that the document cannot fall
    24        into that category.  It is not from solicitors, so it is
    25        clear that that apparently does not apply to these
    26        documents, and cannot apply to these documents and,
    27        secondly, they are documents that not only do not relate to
    28        legal advice or evidence, they cannot relate to legal
    29        advice or evidence, the purpose of those documents, because
    30        they are public relations documents clearly, so on both
    31        those grounds there cannot be any issue of privilege over
    32        those documents, and that is all.
    33
    34   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Well ----
    35
    36   MR. RAMPTON:  The only thing I should add by way of giving
    37        evidence, but I hope your Lordship will not mind, what is
    38        not apparent from those documents is that on many of these
    39        occasions Mrs. Brinley-Codd, and sometimes junior counsel
    40        and once, I think, even I, were actually present at the
    41        meetings.
    42
    43   MS. STEEL:  I do not think that would make any difference in
    44        terms of the purpose of this communication, and therefore
    45        the status of the document.  The purpose is not for any of
    46        those matters which are dealt with under 24/5/8.
    47
    48                 (FOR RULING - SEE SEPARATE TRANSCRIPT)
    49
    50   MS. STEEL:   Can I just ask a question? 
    51 
    52   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes. 
    53
    54   MS. STEEL:   Would it be appropriate for the parts to be
    55        disclosed relating to who it was to and who it was from,
    56        because that might assist in who was present at the
    57        meeting?
    58
    59   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  What I suggest you do is you ask Mr. Preston
    60        the questions you want to ask him about these documents and

Prev Next Index