Day 164 - 26 Sep 95 - Page 48
1 anti-McDonald's campaign run by the group over the period
2 of years which these notes cover, and the Defendants'
3 involvement in the activities of the group generally. As a
4 consequence of that we disclosed all the parts of the notes
5 which we thought bore on those issues, all the Defendants'
6 attendance at meetings, the contributions which they have
7 made to those meetings and all references to McDonald's,
8 whether they helped us or whether they did not.
9
10 MR. JUSTICE BELL: So if they made a contribution to the meeting
11 according to the Enquiry Agent's notes, albeit it was not
12 on McDonald's, that would be ----
13
14 MR. RAMPTON: That is right. We have left in all records of
15 their attendance and all records of their contribution,
16 even where, as sometimes happened, Mr. Morris' contribution
17 was by telephone. He was not actually at the meeting. In
18 effect, all references to the Defendants and all references
19 to McDonald's have been left in. What we have not
20 disclosed, and we believe rightly because they are
21 irrelevant to any issue in the action, are those parts of
22 the notes which concern other activities of the group which
23 have nothing to do with McDonald's and the identities by
24 and large, although sometimes following the Court of
25 Appeal's ruling we had to leave in names and identities and
26 telephone numbers of other people, but by and large we have
27 also excluded the identities of people other than the
28 Defendants who were involved in activities other than the
29 anti-McDonald's campaign and not in the anti-McDonald's
30 campaign, which seems to us to be irrelevant.
31
32 True it is that if we left in those parts Ms. Steel might
33 be able to use those parts as a weapon in cross-examination
34 to discredit the integrity of the notes as a whole. That,
35 however, on authority is not a ground for discovery.
36
37 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Could you just pause a moment, Mr. Rampton?
38
39 MR. RAMPTON: In other words, we have excluded all material
40 which, though it might go to credit, might, or the
41 credibility, as your Lordship put it, of the notes, has no
42 bearing, no relevance direct or indirect to the issues in
43 this action.
44
45 MR. JUSTICE BELL: What is the authority you rely on?
46
47 MR. RAMPTON: For the credit?
48
49 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes.
50
51 MR. RAMPTON: It is well it is noted at 24/8/2 on page 462 of
52 the White Book under Order 24 Rule 8. It says: "As in the
53 case of interrogatories, discovery is solely for the
54 purpose of impeaching the credit of the opposite party and
55 giving him a bad name will not be relevant. It probably
56 does not relate to the matter in question, but in any event
57 should be refused as a matter of discretion under this
58 rule."
59
60 There is a case cited there called Ballantine (George) &
