Day 263 - 14 Jun 96 - Page 23
1
2 (Short Adjournment)
3
4 MS. STEEL: I will try and do it fairly quickly. We are still
5 on GE Capital, of course. You have not got the same copy
6 we have got; it is quite hard to describe where it is. We
7 are still in Hoffman L.J..
8
9 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes.
10
11 MS. STEEL: Going down from where we just were, after the next
12 indented part, there is a paragraph starting: "The
13 inference I draw from this quotation" -- yes?
14
15 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes.
16
17 MS. STEEL: "....is that the missing words deal with the
18 shortcomings of the accountants in the other
19 transaction. How can this, or the name of the
20 party involved, be relevant to the issues in
21 this case?"
22
23 Then there is a discussion about how the other side are
24 saying they would be relevant. Then Hoffman L.J.
25 continues:
26
27 "In my view there is no reason to think that the
28 omitted passages would begin to support such a
29 defence. The document already reveals that
30 someone at GE thought that Magnet and another
31 transaction showed that it was desirable to
32 improve due diligence procedures. I cannot see
33 how the name of the other transaction or the
34 alleged deficiencies of a different accountant's
35 report can be relevant."
36
37 Then there is another sentence which does not particularly
38 matter. Then:
39
40 "It is, in my judgment, inconceivable that the
41 judge at the trial will be willing to admit
42 evidence of collateral transactions, by way of
43 similar facts, to lead to an inference that GE
44 was negligent in this one."
45
46 I would just say that it seems, from the way that this is
47 expressed, you can see the way that they are thinking, that
48 the matter is not going to be anything that is actually
49 going to turn out to be of use in the trial, because it is
50 either similar facts which they are not allowed to rely on
51 or, you know, there is enough in the document already to
52 show the picture.
53
54 MR. JUSTICE BELL: It is back to relevance.
55
56 MS. STEEL: Yes, OK. Obviously, we would argue that in our
57 case what is blanked out is actually the opposite. It is
58 showing the opposite picture about, you know, the other
59 things that were going on in the meeting which helped to
60 give the overall picture. They are not saying the same
