Day 262 - 13 Jun 96 - Page 73


     
     1        relevant".  I accept it is possible to distinguish it in
     2        that way.  But if one looks at all the authorities, they
     3        deal with such a wide range of specialised areas of law
     4        that if the general principles that were enunciated in each
     5        of them, the authorities that only apply to those
     6        specialised areas, we would not have a body of law relating
     7        to the privilege issue.
     8
     9        The issue that this particular authority highlights is that
    10        a series of transactions, not immediately connected with
    11        the issue before the court and not privileged -- whatever
    12        effect or weight they may carry with the court is, of
    13        course, a different matter -- but so far as the issue of
    14        privilege is concerned, there can be a series unconnected
    15        with particular issues before the court which are not
    16        privileged.  In my respectful submission, even if privilege
    17        attaches to some of the documents -- for example, the ones
    18        where it has been waived because the Plaintiffs are relying
    19        upon those witnesses to give evidence -- in relation to the
    20        other three witnesses, one of which has not been named,
    21        because they would form a series of transactions, if the
    22        waiver of the privilege fatally damages the Plaintiffs'
    23        claim to privilege in relation to other matters, then the
    24        fact that there is a series of transactions (as it has been
    25        termed) of the same nature would, in my respectful
    26        submission, mean that they lose their claim to privilege in
    27        relation to those documents.
    28
    29        There is another authority of relevance to this issue.  It
    30        is In re Konigsberg, which is also in the Plaintiffs'
    31        bundle.  It can be found reported in [1989] 1 W.L.R. 1257.
    32
    33   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Which case is that?
    34
    35   MR. RAMPTON:  In re Konigsberg.  I do not know if your Lordship
    36        has that one either.  I am sorry, I have not done my usual
    37        thing of providing copies.  The Defendants have got them,
    38        but somehow it did not get to your Lordship.
    39        Mrs. Brinley-Codd certainly has got it.
    40
    41   MR. MORRIS:  I have a spare copy if you want to hand one up.
    42
    43   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  What is the reference because it may be in
    44        court?
    45
    46   MR. HALL:  It is reported in [1989] W.L.R.
    47
    48   MR. RAMPTON:  Volume 1, 1257.  It starts at the bottom.
    49
    50   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes.  Mr. Riley, I am sorry; we do have 
    51        another copy after all.  (Handed). 
    52 
    53   MR. HALL:  This case concerns the joint ownership of a
    54        matrimonial home by a husband and wife, but the husband was
    55        declared bankrupt and transferred the property to the wife
    56        on various terms.  The trustee sought recovery.  There was
    57        one solicitor involved for the husband and wife, and a
    58        letter was sent to the solicitor from the wife claiming not
    59        to have understood the terms on which the property had been
    60        transferred to her.

Prev Next Index