Day 253 - 21 May 96 - Page 49
1 those people. Then I look to see whether I have any
2 relevant documents but not before. If I do, then I have to
3 ask myself whether they are the subject of legal
4 professional privilege. If they are, then I have to
5 persuade your Lordship that I am right.
6
7 If ever I have seen a fishing interrogatory, if I may put
8 it bluntly, it is No. 3 on this list, particularly when the
9 Defendants, as your Lordship has just observed, have in
10 fact got access to all the information they need if they
11 are willing to do the work and find out the answers to the
12 questions which they want answered. Without the
13 authorities, I do not know whether I can the matter any
14 further.
15
16 MR. JUSTICE BELL: The authorities, as I understand it, in any
17 event, only go to -- I say "only go", it may be very
18 important -- but go to the question of legal professional
19 privilege. They do not go to the usual considerations as
20 to whether leave should be given to serve interrogatories
21 or whether any order ----
22
23 MR. RAMPTON: No, my Lord, obviously a block on an interrogatory
24 is legal professional privilege, but if the court thinks
25 that in the first place, in any event, irrespective of any
26 question of legal professional privilege, the interrogatory
27 is inadmissible because, put bluntly, it is fishing, why
28 then no question of legal professional privilege or
29 authorities ever arises.
30
31 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Leave aside questions of legal professional
32 privilege. What I want to know is how, in any event, quite
33 regardless of that, you would argue that these
34 interrogatories are justified?
35
36 MS. STEEL: Well, can I just say actually that we were not
37 actually applying for documents so it is not a question of,
38 at this stage anyway, whether they should go, whether they
39 have to disclose anything or anything like that.
40
41 Can I say, firstly, that this actually arises not out of
42 our pleading, although it does relate to that as well, but
43 it mainly arises out of the Plaintiffs' pleaded case that
44 we are responsible for everything that went on at meetings
45 of London Greenpeace or at the events. Therefore,
46 obviously, it is relevant to know which actions were taken
47 and which things were said by the Plaintiffs' agent.
48
49 That relates also to the counterclaim because the
50 Plaintiffs allege that the reason they put out their
51 leaflets was to deal with leaflets which were being
52 distributed subsequent to the writs and obviously, bearing
53 in mind the fact that inquiry agents we know attended the
54 meetings for a considerable period after the writs were
55 served, it is relevant to know what dates they attended and
56 how many, what degree of influence they had on the group,
57 and so on.
58
59 Basically, all the interrogatories ask, and whilst we have
60 had a reply to the letter, the main point to number 1 is
