Day 164 - 26 Sep 95 - Page 21


     
     1
     2   MR. RAMPTON:  Yes, my Lord, I believe your Lordship should look
     3        at it.  "If a party who is required by rule 9 to serve such
     4        a notice as is therein mentioned ... offers", this is in
     5        (c), "inspection at a time or place such that, in the
     6        opinion of the Court, it is unreasonable to offer
     7        inspection then or, as the case may be, there, then,
     8        subject to Rule 13(1)", which I do not think applies in
     9        this case, except that it is the provision that inspection
    10        has to be necessary in the opinion of the court, "the Court
    11        may, on the application of the party entitled to
    12        inspection, make an order for production of the documents
    13        in question for inspection at such time and place, and in
    14        such manner, as it", that is the court, "thinks fit."
    15
    16        So, your Lordship thought it wholly unreasonable for us to
    17        offer the Defendants the opportunity for inspection during
    18        a seven week period when the court has not been sitting,
    19        the Defendants having declined that opportunity, why, then
    20        your Lordship could make an order under 24 r. 11(1).  But,
    21        unless ordered to do so, I will maintain the offer which
    22        was made on 7th August.  The Defendants were then and are
    23        still at liberty to come and inspect the document at
    24        Barlows' offices.  Beyond that, unless I am ordered to do
    25        so, we shall not do anything.
    26
    27        No explanation has been offered by either of the Defendants
    28        for why during the last seven weeks they have not taken
    29        advantage of the offer to inspect.
    30
    31   MS. STEEL:   Just on that, which I was going to say anyway,
    32        I did inform Mrs. Brinley-Codd before the end of the last
    33        term that I would be away over part of August.  I did not
    34        get back until I think it was 21st or 22nd, I am not sure,
    35        so I certainly did not see the letter until that time.
    36
    37   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Is that August?
    38
    39   MS. STEEL:   August, yes.  Following that, I think we had,
    40        particularly Mr. Morris, had protracted correspondence with
    41        the Plaintiffs to persuade them to provide us with a copy.
    42        Given that I had several other problems that I had to sort
    43        out at the time which were related in a letter to the
    44        Plaintiffs, I did hope that this could be sorted out by
    45        them providing us with a copy which we could look at home
    46        in our own time when we had spare time, rather than having
    47        to set aside specific days and travelling all the way over
    48        to their offices.  As I say, basically, we hoped it would
    49        be resolved by the provision of a copy that we could take
    50        copies from, if necessary, if the Plaintiffs did not want 
    51        to photocopy it. 
    52 
    53   MR. MORRIS:  Maybe if I can just make conclusionary remarks on
    54        this, the problem does not seem to be one of cost, the
    55        problem seems to be one of them not wanting us to see the
    56        security section.  I do not particularly want to see the
    57        security section, to be honest.  Therefore, I think the
    58        Plaintiffs should be asked or ordered to enquire if a copy
    59        can be made available without that section, i.e. there is a
    60        spare copy, that section can be removed and then it can be

Prev Next Index