word
sp
AT
TO
sp
PAGE
NINETEEN
sp
MY
LORD
sp
OF
sp
THE
TRANSCRIPT
sp
PASSAGE
THAT
sp
BEGINS
sp
MY
READING
sp
OF
sp
THIS
JUDGMENT
sp
DOWN
sp
TO
THE
BOTTOM
sp
OF
sp
THAT
sp
PARAGRAPH
sp
AT
sp
LETTER
sp
G
sp
SO
sp
FROM
sp
B
TO
sp
G
sp
ON
sp
PAGE
sp
NINETEEN
sp
MY
sp
LORD
sp
YES
sp
NOW
MY
sp
LORD
sp
ER
sp
LORD
JUSTICE
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
ER
sp
AGREED
sp
WITH
ER
sp
LORD
JUSTICE
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
THAT'S
AT
TWENTY
sp
A
sp
LORD
JUSTICE
sp
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
sp
ALSO
sp
AGREED
sp
BUT
sp
ER
sp
ADDED
sp
ER
sp
SOME
sp
FURTHER
ER
sp
THOUGHTS
sp
ON
sp
THE
sp
ER
sp
ON
THE
sp
ISSUE
sp
ER
HIS
CONCLUSION
sp
ER
sp
IS
SUMMARIZED
OF
sp
PAGE
TWENTY
TWO
sp
PARAGRAPH
sp
G
sp
OF
sp
THE
sp
ER
TRANSCRIPT
sp
YES
sp
YES
sp
NOW
sp
MY
LORD
sp
YOUR
LORDSHIP
WOULD
OF
SEEN
FROM
sp
THE
{OOV}
CASE
sp
AND
NOW
FROM
THE
CONTINENTAL
sp
TELEVISION
sp
CASE
sp
BOTH
IN
THE
sp
DIVISIONAL
sp
COURT
AND
IN
THE
sp
COURT
OF
sp
APPEAL
sp
THAT
WHERE
A
REFERENCE
sp
IS
TO
BE
MADE
sp
THE
sp
COURT
sp
THAT
IS
MARKING
THE
REFERENCE
sp
IF
WHAT
IS
SORT
sp
TO
BE
DONE
sp
IS
sp
EITHER
sp
TO
sp
CHALLENGE
sp
A
BRITISH
sp
STATUTE
sp
OR
sp
IN
THE
CASE
sp
OF
ER
ER
sp
THE
sp
RED
sp
HOT
sp
DUTCH
CASE
sp
{OOV}
OF
COURSE
sp
WITH
sp
THE
sp
STATUTE
sp
ER
sp
SOMETHING
WHICH
ER
IT
INVOLVES
A
MINISTERIAL
sp
DECISION
sp
BUT
IN
EITHER
OF
THOSE
INSTANCES
sp
THE
COURT
sp
HAS
sp
GOT
sp
TO
sp
DECIDE
IN
THE
INTERIM
sp
WHETHER
OR
NOT
sp
THE
STATUTE
sp
OR
MEASURE
sp
SHOULD
REMAIN
sp
IN
sp
FORCE
sp
AND
sp
THERE
IS
sp
THE
PRIORITY
sp
OF
sp
PUBLIC
sp
POLICY
sp
AS
sp
INDICATED
sp
IN
sp
ER
sp
LORD
sp
ER
sp
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
sp
SPEECH
sp
REFERRED
TO
sp
BOTH
IN
THE
DIVISIONAL
sp
COURT
sp
AND
sp
IN
THE
sp
COURT
OF
APPEAL
sp
IN
CONTINENTAL
sp
TELEVISION
sp
IN
sp
ER
sp
MAINTAINING
sp
THE
LAW
sp
IN
sp
FORCE
sp
AND
sp
A
sp
A
sp
BONUS
sp
HAS
TO
BE
FACED
sp
BY
sp
THE
PERSON
SEEKING
sp
DISCIPLINE
sp
FROM
THE
LAW
sp
TO
sp
SHOW
US
A
SUFFICIENTLY
STRONG
sp
CASE
sp
TO
JUSTIFY
sp
THE
sp
ER
ER
sp
THE
SUSPENSION
OF
sp
THE
sp
LAW
sp
IN
THE
sp
INTERIM
sp
MY
LORD
sp
IN
MAKING
MY
MAIN
SUBMISSIONS
TO
YOUR
LORDSHIP
sp
ERM
sp
I
SUBMITTED
sp
AND
sp
THIS
sp
IS
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
POSITION
sp
THAT
sp
THERE
IS
sp
NO
DISTINCTION
BETWEEN
PUBLIC
AND
sp
PRIVATE
sp
ACTS
sp
{OOV}
IN
THE
BRITISH
RAIL
sp
BOARD
sp
BOTH
sp
THE
sp
ACT
sp
AND
THE
CENTRAL
FUND
sp
BYELAW
sp
SHOULD
sp
BE
TAKEN
sp
AS
sp
VALID
sp
IN
THE
INTERIM
sp
IF
YOUR
LORDSHIP
sp
IS
MINDED
sp
TO
MAKE
A
REFERENCE
sp
UNLESS
sp
STRONG
EVIDENCE
sp
OF
sp
INVALIDITY
sp
IS
sp
{OOV}
SO
sp
YOUR
LORDSHIP
sp
IF
YOU
MAKE
A
REFERENCE
IT
sp
NEEDS
TO
sp
FORM
A
VIEW
sp
AS
TO
THE
STRENGTH
sp
OF
sp
THE
YES
sp
OF
sp
THE
ERM
OF
THE
sp
DEFENDANT'S
CASE
WELL
HOW
sp
WOULD
THAT
HOW
sp
WOULD
sp
THAT
FIT
sp
INTO
sp
THE
PRESENT
sp
CONTEXT
ERM
WE'RE
ASSUMING
HERE
THAT
sp
I
sp
HAVEN'T
sp
DECIDED
sp
THE
ER
sp
EUROPEAN
sp
POINTS
sp
OR
sp
SOME
sp
OF
sp
THEM
IN
YOUR
sp
FAVOUR
sp
YES
sp
MY
LORD
OR
OR
ALTERNATIVELY
sp
BECAUSE
I
HAVEN'T
sp
I
HAVE
MADE
THIS
sp
CLEAR
sp
THROUGHOUT
I
COME
TO
THE
sp
CONCLUSION
THAT
sp
THE
sp
THE
sp
QUESTIONS
sp
AS
sp
POSED
ERM
sp
OR
sp
POSED
sp
IN
ANY
sp
COURT
sp
WHICH
ANY
ONE
HAS
sp
YET
SUGGESTED
sp
REALLY
CAN'T
sp
CAN'T
BE
ANSWERED
OR
sp
OR
sp
THERE
ARE
REASONS
FOR
NOT
ANSWERING
AT
sp
THIS
STAGE
WHATEVER
IT
MAY
BE
YES
sp
MY
LORD
IN
OTHER
WORDS
ANYTHING
sp
EXCEPT
A
sp
WHOLLY
sp
FAVOURABLE
ANSWER
TO
YOUR
sp
CLIENTS
sp
YES
MY
LORD
IN
EFFECT
sp
YES
sp
WELL
THEN
sp
ERM
sp
JUST
LOOKING
sp
AHEAD
IN
THOSE
CIRCUMSTANCES
ERM
ER
sp
ON
sp
ON
THE
sp
FACE
sp
OF
sp
THOSE
sp
ISSUES
sp
ER
WHERE
DO
WE
GO
FROM
sp
THERE
THEN
sp
WELL
MY
LORD
sp
ER
sp
YOU
KNOW
THE
SOCIETY
IS
IN
YOUR
sp
LORDSHIPS
sp
HANDS
sp
IN
TERMS
sp
OF
SEEKING
TO
MOVE
MATTERS
sp
FORWARD
sp
THE
sp
SOCIETY
sp
IS
sp
ERM
sp
VERY
ANXIOUS
INDEED
sp
AND
THE
REASON
YOUR
sp
LORDSHIP
sp
KNOWS
sp
THAT
sp
THE
sp
HIATUS
IN
RECOVERY
FROM
CENTRAL
FUNDS
SHOULD
sp
BE
sp
OVERCOME
sp
OUR
sp
PRIMARY
sp
CASE
sp
ER
sp
IS
THAT
sp
ER
sp
WE
CAN
DEMONSTRATE
sp
TO
YOUR
sp
LORDSHIP
sp
THAT
sp
THE
sp
EUROPEAN
sp
LAW
sp
DEFENCES
sp
ON
THE
PRELIMINARY
ISSUES
sp
SHOULD
BE
ANSWERED
IN
THE
SOCIETY'S
FAVOUR
sp
WELL
YEAH
YES
{OOV}
BUT
SHOULD
YOU
HAVE
sp
SHOULD
YOU
HAVE
DOUBTS
ABOUT
THAT
sp
MY
sp
LORD
sp
THEN
sp
ER
sp
WHAT
WE
URGED
YOUR
sp
LORDSHIP
sp
TO
sp
DO
WOULD
BE
IN
YOUR
JUDGMENT
sp
ER
sp
TO
INCLUDE
sp
A
CONSIDERATION
sp
OF
sp
THE
sp
STRENGTH
OF
sp
THE
sp
CASE
sp
ER
sp
YOUR
LORDSHIP
sp
IS
SEIZED
OF
THE
MATTER
NOW
sp
IF
YOUR
LORDSHIP
sp
ER
sp
CONSIDERS
THAT
THERE
ARE
sp
ISSUES
sp
OF
sp
LAW
WHICH
REQUIRE
CLARIFICATION
sp
FROM
THE
EUROPEAN
sp
COURT
OF
sp
JUSTICE
AND
IN
sp
COMPETITION
CASES
sp
ALL
THE
EUROPEAN
COURT
CANDID
ON
sp
REFERENCES
sp
IS
TO
GIVE
GUIDANCE
ON
sp
QUESTIONS
OF
sp
LAW
sp
YOUR
LORDSHIP
IDENTIFIES
QUESTIONS
OF
sp
LAW
sp
WHICH
NEED
TO
BE
I
sp
WHICH
NEED
TO
BE
RESOLVED
sp
AND
YOU
sp
THINK
THAT
IT
IS
THE
MOST
APPROPRIATE
sp
COURSE
TO
sp
REFER
A
sp
QUESTION
sp
THEN
WE
WOULD
ASK
sp
THAT
YOUR
LORDSHIP
sp
CONSIDER
sp
IN
THE
INTERIM
sp
THE
POSITION
sp
OF
sp
THE
sp
THE
LLOYDS
sp
ACT
sp
CLAUSES
sp
THERE
ARE
SORT
sp
TO
sp
BE
CHALLENGED
sp
BY
THE
DEFENCES
sp
BECAUSE
IT
WILL
BE
YEAH
YEAH
WELL
I
I
SEE
ALL
THAT
sp
THEN
sp
WHAT
WHAT
IS
IT
sp
LITERALLY
THAT
YOU'D
ASK
sp
ME
sp
TO
DO
WOULD
YOU
TAKE
OUT
AN
APPLICATION
sp
FOR
JUDGEMENT
ON
ORDER
sp
FOURTEEN
WOULD
sp
YOU
BE
EXPECTING
sp
ME
sp
TO
GIVE
sp
JUDGMENT
OR
OR
sp
WHAT
OTHER
sp
COURSES
sp
DO
YOU
EXPECT
sp
BE
EXPECTING
HOPING
WOULD
sp
TAKE
sp
WELL
MY
LORD
sp
ONE
sp
ONE
APPROACH
sp
WOULD
BE
sp
FOR
sp
ER
YOUR
LORDSHIP
sp
TO
sp
CONSIDER
THE
MATTER
sp
IN
sp
RESPECT
OF
ER
sp
ORDER
FOURTEEN
sp
A
sp
ER
sp
IN
TERMS
sp
OF
sp
ER
sp
THE
sp
VALIDITY
IN
THE
INTERIM
sp
OF
sp
THE
sp
ER
sp
LLOYDS
ACT
sp
AND
THE
CENTRAL
FUND
BYELAW
sp
AND
THAT
IS
A
MATTER
THAT
sp
YOUR
LORDSHIP
sp
COULD
COULD
DEAL
WITH
ON
THE
BASIS
OF
A
sp
AN
ORAL
APPLICATION
sp
YES
sp
ERM
IN
SHORT
OF
HAVING
BEFORE
YOUR
LORDSHIP
A
VERY
COMPLICATED
sp
ER
sp
ARRAY
sp
OF
sp
PROCEDURAL
OPTIONS
sp
ER
sp
THE
THE
VIEW
THAT
HAS
BEEN
TAKEN
BY
sp
MY
LEAD
sp
WAS
THE
sp
MOST
sp
APPROPRIATE
sp
ER
sp
COURSE
sp
WAS
TO
COME
AND
ARGUE
THE
ISSUE
SUBSTANTIALLY
sp
AND
THEN
sp
IN
sp
THE
LIGHT
OF
WHAT
YOUR
sp
LORDSHIP
sp
RULES
sp
THEREAFTER
TO
sp
SEE
sp
THE
BEST
WAY
sp
FORWARD
sp
IN
TERMS
OF
sp
FURTHER
sp
PROCEDURAL
APPLICATIONS
TO
YOUR
LORDSHIP
sp
ER
IS
WHAT
YOU'RE
SAYING
WHAT
WHAT
YOU'RE
sp
SAYING
sp
APPLY
sp
EQUALLY
sp
ERM
sp
SPITTING
sp
RATHER
sp
IF
sp
I
sp
SORT
INFORMATION
sp
FROM
IT
I'M
NOT
QUITE
sp
SURE
WHAT
SORT
INFORMATION
sp
I
COULD
SEEK
sp
FROM
A
sp
COMMISSION
sp
GOT
ANY
sp
SUGGESTIONS
IN
sp
THAT
{OOV}
WELL
sp
MY
LORD
sp
YOU
COULD
SEEK
sp
YOU
CAN
CERTAINLY
SEEK
INFORMATION
sp
FROM
THE
sp
COMMISSION
sp
ER
sp
CONCERNING
THE
sp
STATE
OF
sp
THE
sp
PROCEEDINGS
sp
ERM
sp
THAT
THE
COMMISSION
sp
IS
sp
LOOKING
AT
sp
IN
RESPECT
OF
sp
THE
sp
MM
ER
COMPLAINTS
THAT
HAVE
BEEN
SUBMITTED
sp
YOU
CAN
ASK
sp
THEM
sp
ER
sp
ERM
sp
FOR
sp
FACTUAL
sp
OR
LEGAL
INFORMATION
sp
IN
ACCORDANCE
WITH
sp
ER
sp
PARAGRAPHS
sp
ER
sp
{OOV}
sp
THIRTY
SEVEN
sp
TO
sp
THIRTY
sp
NINE
OF
THE
sp
GUIDELINES
WHICH
ARE
IN
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
AND
sp
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
ER
PAGE
ELEVEN
sp
THIRTY
EIGHT
TO
ELEVEN
THIRTY
NINE
sp
MM
sp
COULD
sp
WE
sp
HAVE
sp
THE
sp
DO
EITHER
OF
YOU
sp
HAVE
sp
THE
EXPERIENCE
sp
OF
HOW
LONG
sp
HOW
LONG
THIS
MIGHT
sp
TAKE
sp
MY
LORD
IT'S
A
RELATIVELY
sp
NEW
PROCEDURE
MM
sp
AND
ERM
sp
BUT
THE
COMMISSION
sp
I'M
I'M
SURE
IF
sp
YOUR
LORDSHIP
ASKED
FOR
EXPEDITION
sp
WOULD
SEEK
TO
DEAL
WITH
THE
MATTER
EXPEDITIOUSLY
sp
YEAH
sp
MY
LORD
IN
SAYING
sp
DOING
IT
IN
ANOTHER
CASE
sp
WHICH
IS
AN
ARBITRATION
sp
MM
sp
AND
THE
COMMISSION
sp
EXPEDITE
sp
THIS
MATTER
sp
FOR
sp
THE
BEST
PART
OF
TWELVE
MONTHS
ALREADY
sp
YEAH
sp
MM
sp
IT'S
THE
DELAY
THAT
WE
ARE
CONCERNED
ABOUT
sp
MY
LORD
sp
WELL
I
CAN
UNDERSTAND
sp
THAT
sp
YES
WELL
I
I
I
JUST
sp
SAY
WASN'T
sp
GOING
TO
RULE
ON
THIS
AND
I'M
NOT
sp
IN
NOT
ER
sp
CONVINCED
AT
sp
THE
MOMENT
IT
WOULD
BE
APPROPRIATE
sp
TO
RULE
ON
sp
IT
ER
sp
AS
sp
PART
OF
sp
THE
sp
ER
sp
IN
sp
ANY
JUDGMENT
I
sp
GAVE
sp
BUT
sp
IT
SEEMED
TO
ME
QUITE
IMPORTANT
sp
ON
REFLECTION
sp
TO
sp
TO
sp
HEAR
THE
WAY
sp
WHAT
sp
YOU
WERE
sp
PUTTING
sp
IT
MY
LORD
THERE
ARE
TWO
OTHER
GROUNDS
MM
THAT
I
WOULD
ALSO
sp
PUT
IT
ON
sp
IN
sp
RELATION
sp
TO
YOUR
sp
TO
sp
TO
TO
sp
TO
sp
TO
YOUR
LORDSHIP
AND
TO
CONSIDERING
THE
MATTER
IN
INTERIM
sp
YOUR
LORDSHIP
HAS
sp
ER
ERM
sp
ER
sp
HEARD
ER
sp
THE
sp
INFORMATION
sp
THAT
HAD
sp
BEEN
PUT
FORWARD
sp
ER
sp
BY
THE
SOCIETY
sp
YOU
HAVE
SEEN
sp
THE
sp
ER
sp
INFORMATION
ABOUT
sp
THE
sp
POSITION
THE
COMMISSION
sp
HAS
TAKEN
sp
YOUR
sp
LORDSHIP
KNOWS
sp
THAT
sp
THE
COMMISSION
WAS
INFORMED
ABOUT
BOTH
sp
THE
sp
ACT
sp
AND
ALL
THE
RELEVANT
sp
BYELAWS
IN
THE
PRESENT
sp
CASE
sp
THE
PRECURSORED
sp
THE
CENTRAL
sp
FUND
sp
BYELAW
sp
WAS
sp
INFORMALLY
sp
PROVED
sp
BY
THE
COMMISSION
sp
MRS
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
sp
HAS
SWORN
ON
AFFIDAVIT
sp
THAT
THE
SOCIETY
HAS
NEVER
sp
BEEN
GIVEN
sp
ANY
INDICATION
sp
THAT
THE
MATTERS
sp
IN
ISSUE
IN
THE
EUROPEAN
LAW
DEFENCE
sp
ARE
CONTRARY
sp
TO
sp
COMPETITION
sp
RULES
sp
AND
YOUR
LORDSHIP
ALSO
sp
HAS
sp
THE
sp
ANSWER
sp
BY
THE
COMMISSION
sp
TO
THE
EUROPEAN
sp
PARLIAMENT
sp
WHICH
IS
EXHIBITED
sp
TO
MRS
sp
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
AFFIDAVIT
AND
WHICH
I
TOOK
sp
YOUR
LORDSHIP
TO
EARLIER
AND
sp
OF
WHICH
sp
JUDICIAL
NOTE
sp
CAN
BE
TAKEN
BY
VIRTUAL
SECTION
sp
THREE
sp
TWO
OF
sp
THE
EUROPEAN
COMMUNITIES
sp
ACT
sp
SO
MY
LORD
sp
WE
SAY
sp
THAT
sp
THERE
IS
sp
ALREADY
sp
A
sp
BODY
sp
OF
sp
INFORMATION
sp
WHICH
sp
PROVIDES
sp
A
BASIS
sp
IF
ONE
sp
HAS
TO
CONSIDER
sp
WHAT
SHOULD
BE
DONE
IN
THE
INTERIM
sp
OF
SAYING
THAT
IN
THE
INTERIM
sp
THE
APPLICATION
sp
OF
sp
THE
sp
ACT
sp
AND
THE
APPLICATION
sp
FOR
BYELAWS
sp
SHOULD
BE
MAINTAINED
sp
THE
THIRD
ELEMENT
sp
MY
sp
LORD
sp
IS
sp
THE
sp
INTIMATE
sp
LINK
sp
BETWEEN
THE
sp
RECOVERIES
OF
sp
MONEY
sp
FOR
THE
CENTRAL
FUND
ER
sp
UNDER
sp
THE
sp
BYELAW
sp
AND
THE
IMPLEMENTATION
sp
OF
sp
THE
sp
UNITED
KINGDOM'S
OPERATIONS
sp
UNDER
sp
DIRECTIVE
sp
SEVENTY
sp
THREE
TWO
THREE
NINE
sp
WE'VE
sp
BEEN
OVER
THIS
sp
BEFORE
MY
sp
LORD
sp
ERM
sp
MY
LORD
IS
sp
IS
AWARE
sp
OF
sp
THE
sp
INTIMATE
sp
LINK
sp
ER
sp
BETWEEN
THE
sp
ER
sp
RECOVERY
sp
OF
sp
MONIES
TO
sp
CENTRAL
sp
FUND
sp
THE
MAINTENANCE
SOLVENCY
sp
AND
THE
PAYING
sp
OF
sp
POLICY
sp
HOLDERS
sp
IF
I
MAY
MY
sp
LORD
sp
THERE
IS
sp
AN
ISSUE
THAT
WAS
RAISED
IN
MY
sp
LEARNED
sp
FRIENDS
sp
REPLY
sp
ER
sp
WHICH
sp
ER
sp
WAS
sp
A
NEW
POINT
sp
ER
sp
AND
WHERE
sp
I
DO
TAKE
ISSUE
sp
WITH
HIM
AND
THIS
CONCERNS
sp
THE
ISSUE
sp
OF
sp
THE
sp
RELEVANCE
OF
sp
THE
DIRECTIVE
HERE
sp
{OOV}
sp
THE
THE
ISSUE
sp
RELATING
TO
sp
ER
sp
WHETHER
OR
sp
NOT
sp
THE
sp
ER
sp
LLOYD'S
ACT
sp
AND
sp
THE
SOCIETY
sp
HAVE
sp
GOT
sp
ANY
RELEVANCE
sp
IN
RESPECT
OF
sp
THE
sp
DIRECTIVE
sp
HIS
sp
SUBMISSION
sp
AS
I
UNDERSTOOD
IT
sp
WAS
sp
THAT
UNDER
ARTICLE
sp
ONE
EIGHT
NINE
sp
THE
sp
DIRECTIVE
ONLY
ADDRESSED
ITSELF
sp
TO
STATES
sp
TO
THE
BRITISH
GOVERNMENT
sp
AND
THAT
THEREFORE
sp
THE
RELIANCE
ON
THE
DIRECTIVE
sp
BY
THE
SOCIETY
sp
AND
sp
IN
RELATION
sp
TO
THE
sp
LLOYDS
ACT
sp
WAS
sp
ER
sp
A
MISCONCEIVED
sp
ER
sp
RELIANCE
sp
MY
LORD
sp
I'D
LIKE
TO
PASS
UP
TO
YOUR
LORDSHIP
sp
A
sp
PASSAGE
FROM
sp
ER
sp
A
LEADING
sp
TEXT
sp
BOOK
sp
WRITTEN
BY
sp
DOCTOR
DEREK
sp
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
Q
C
sp
AND
sp
ALAN
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
sp
DEALING
WITH
EUROPEAN
sp
COMMUNITY
LAW
sp
MM
sp
MM
sp
AND
MY
LORD
sp
THE
sp
MY
LORD
YOU'LL
SEE
AT
THE
sp
BOTTOM
sp
OF
sp
PAGE
sp
SIXTY
NINE
THIS
IS
THE
LATEST
EDITION
JUST
sp
PUBLISHED
THIS
sp
SUMMER
sp
MY
LORD
ERM
sp
AT
THE
BOTTOM
OF
sp
PAGE
SIXTY
NINE
sp
YOU
HAVE
AN
EXTRACT
FROM
sp
THE
EUROPEAN
COMMUNITY
TREATY
sp
WHICH
ER
sp
DEFINES
A
DIRECTIVE
sp
AND
YOU
WILL
SEE
MY
LORD
sp
SAYS
sp
IN
TERMS
sp
THAT
IT
LEAVES
TO
THE
NATIONAL
AUTHORITIES
sp
THE
CHOICE
OF
sp
FORMS
THE
METHODS
sp
AND
THEN
IF
MY
LORD
sp
COULD
sp
READ
sp
THE
PASSAGE
sp
ER
sp
UNDER
THAT
sp
ON
PAGE
SEVENTY
sp
YES
sp
MY
LORD
sp
THE
sp
I
RELY
ON
sp
ON
THIS
sp
PASSAGE
AND
YOUR
LORDSHIP
HAS
ALSO
sp
GOT
THE
FULL
SECTION
sp
DEALING
WITH
sp
ER
sp
THE
NATURE
OF
THE
DIRECTIVE
sp
ER
sp
FROM
sp
ER
sp
THE
sp
ER
FROM
THE
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
AND
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
sp
BOOK
sp
I
RELY
ON
sp
THIS
AS
sp
ER
sp
AS
sp
INDICATING
sp
BOTH
THE
sp
TEXT
OF
THE
OF
sp
THE
sp
TREATY
ITSELF
sp
AND
THIS
sp
PASSAGE
sp
FROM
THE
LEARNED
sp
AUTHORS
sp
AS
INDICATING
THAT
IT
IS
sp
WITHIN
THE
POWER
sp
OF
sp
THE
UNITED
sp
KINGDOM
sp
YES
sp
TO
sp
CHOOSE
THE
FORM
AND
METHODS
sp
BY
WHICH
sp
DIRECTIVE
SEVENTY
sp
THREE
TWO
sp
THREE
NINE
sp
SHOULD
BE
GIVEN
EFFECT
sp
YES
sp
AND
MY
LORD
IN
RELATION
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
sp
THE
sp
PROVISIONS
OF
sp
THE
LLOYD'S
ACT
sp
AND
sp
THE
sp
ER
sp
BYELAWS
THAT
ARE
sp
LINKED
sp
INTO
sp
SOLVENCY
sp
AND
THE
MAINTENANCE
sp
OF
ER
sp
ER
sp
ADEQUATE
sp
FUND
sp
AND
THE
PAYMENT
sp
OF
sp
POLICY
sp
HOLDERS
sp
IN
MY
SUBMISSION
sp
CONSTITUTE
sp
THE
IMPLEMENTATION
sp
OF
sp
THAT
sp
DIRECTIVE
AND
THOSE
OBLIGATIONS
sp
ER
sp
IN
sp
ER
sp
RELATION
TO
THE
SOCIETY
sp
AND
sp
THAT
IS
sp
PERFECTLY
COMPATIBLE
sp
WITH
sp
COMMUNITY
LAW
sp
ER
sp
IT
IS
ER
sp
THE
sp
STATES
sp
ER
sp
HAVE
sp
VARIETY
OF
WAYS
sp
IN
WHICH
THEY
CAN
GIVE
EFFECT
sp
ER
sp
TO
sp
COMMUNITY
OBLIGATIONS
sp
BUT
YOU'RE
SAYING
IN
sp
IN
IN
SHORT
ARE
YOU
THAT
sp
ERM
sp
THAT
sp
IN
THE
sp
PRESENT
INSTANCE
ERM
sp
THE
OBLIGATION
sp
WAS
PUT
ON
THE
UNITED
KINGDOM
sp
GOVERNMENT
sp
WHICH
HAS
sp
SORT
IT
sp
MAY
HAVE
SUCCEEDED
sp
OR
NOT
AS
THE
CASE
MAYBE
sp
DISCHARGE
sp
THE
OBLIGATION
sp
BY
IN
EFFECT
sp
ERM
sp
SUBJECT
sp
TO
THE
sp
SUBSIDIARY
sp
PROVISIONS
sp
WHICH
sp
YOU'VE
sp
BOTH
sp
MAKE
sp
REFERENCE
AND
sp
LEAVING
IT
sp
TO
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
TO
ER
sp
REGULATE
sp
THESE
sp
MATTERS
sp
THAT'S
RIGHT
MY
LORD
YES
ONE
HAS
ER
AND
PARLIAMENT
OF
sp
COURSE
sp
DID
THAT
WITHIN
YES
I
FOLLOW
I
FOLLOW
THAT
sp
ONE
sp
MM
sp
DOES
YOU
YOU
MIGHT
I
SUPPOSE
HAVE
ANOTHER
POINT
ON
ARTICLE
sp
FIVE
MIGHT
sp
YOU
NOT
sp
YES
MY
sp
LORD
ERM
sp
IN
sp
NAMELY
THAT
TO
THE
ER
sp
THE
DUTIES
sp
PUT
UPON
ME
sp
MY
LORD
THERE'S
A
CASE
sp
WHICH
I
WANT
TO
sp
BRING
YOUR
LORDSHIPS
ATTENTION
TO
IN
RELATE
sp
IN
RELATION
TO
sp
ARTICLE
sp
FIVE
sp
AND
THIS
sp
IS
sp
THE
sp
{OOV}
sp
MY
LORD
THERE
IS
A
FURTHER
CASE
THAT
I
sp
WANT
TO
BRING
TO
sp
YOUR
LORDSHIPS
ATTENTION
WELL
sp
WELL
TELL
ME
sp
WHAT
ER
IT'S
sp
IT'S
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
IT'S
THE
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
CASE
sp
FROM
WHAT
sp
WHAT
sp
PROPOSITION
ARE
YOU
sp
GOING
sp
TO
sp
CITE
IT
ERM
sp
THIS
IS
sp
A
sp
A
CASE
sp
WHICH
sp
ER
sp
DEALS
WITH
sp
ER
sp
THE
sp
ISSUE
sp
OF
sp
THE
SUSPENSION
sp
OF
A
MEASURE
sp
BASED
UPON
COMMUNITY
LAW
sp
WHETHER
A
NATIONAL
sp
COURT
sp
WHEN
A
MEASURE
HAS
BEEN
BASED
UPON
COMMUNITY
LAW
sp
HAS
POWER
TO
SUSPEND
sp
IT
sp
NOW
MY
LORD
sp
THE
sp
ER
sp
ISSUE
IN
sp
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
sp
WAS
sp
ERM
sp
INVOLVED
sp
ER
sp
THE
sp
ER
sp
DECISION
sp
OF
sp
ER
THE
sp
GERMAN
GOVERNMENT
sp
ER
sp
TO
sp
GIVE
sp
EFFECT
sp
TO
sp
ER
sp
A
sp
COMMUNITY
sp
REGULATION
sp
IN
THE
SUGAR
sp
SECTOR
sp
WHICH
sp
ER
REQUIRED
sp
ER
sp
THAT
sp
LEVIES
sp
SHOULD
sp
BE
sp
ER
OBTAINED
sp
FROM
sp
SUGAR
sp
COMPANIES
sp
SO
IT
WAS
sp
A
sp
VERY
DIRECT
sp
ER
sp
IMPLEMENTATION
sp
OF
sp
COMMUNITY
sp
LAW
ERM
sp
IN
THAT
SENSE
sp
DIFFERENT
sp
TO
THE
MATTER
sp
BEFORE
YOUR
LORDSHIP
sp
BUT
WE
RELY
ON
IT
sp
BY
ANALOGY
sp
AND
IN
sp
IN
THIS
CASE
sp
MY
LORD
sp
ER
sp
YOU
WILL
SEE
IT'S
IN
THE
SUPPLEMENTARY
sp
BUNDLE
OF
AUTHORITIES
THE
EXTRA
sp
BUNDLE
sp
BECAUSE
sp
BEFORE
YOUR
LORDSHIP
sp
IN
THAT
CASE
YOUR
LORDSHIP
sp
WILL
SEE
sp
ER
sp
BETWEEN
PARAGRAPHS
sp
FIFTEEN
AND
THIRTY
sp
THREE
sp
ER
sp
THE
sp
ER
sp
EUROPEAN
COURT
sp
INDICATING
sp
THAT
sp
WHERE
sp
A
sp
MEASURE
sp
THAT
HAS
BEEN
BASED
UPON
sp
A
COMMUNITY
sp
ER
sp
ER
sp
LAW
sp
IS
sp
CHALLENGED
sp
BEFORE
A
NATIONAL
sp
COURT
sp
THAT
THE
NATIONAL
sp
COURT
sp
ER
sp
SHOULD
sp
ER
sp
ONLY
sp
ER
sp
ENGAGE
sp
IN
THE
sp
ER
sp
ER
SUSPENSION
sp
OF
SUCH
A
MEASURE
sp
ERM
sp
IF
sp
THERE
IS
SERIOUS
sp
DOUBT
sp
ER
sp
THIS
IS
sp
ERM
sp
MY
LORD
sp
ER
sp
AT
sp
ER
sp
PARAGRAPH
sp
TWENTY
THREE
sp
OF
sp
THE
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
CASE
ER
sp
AND
WE
SAY
sp
THAT
sp
ER
sp
IF
YOU
LOOK
sp
AT
sp
THE
sp
CRITERIONS
sp
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
THEY
ARE
NOT
sp
DISSIMILAR
FROM
THOSE
THAT
sp
HAVE
sp
BEEN
ADOPTED
BY
THE
sp
HOUSE
OF
LORDS
sp
AS
A
MATTER
OF
ENGLISH
LAW
sp
IN
THE
sp
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
CASE
sp
MM
sp
WE
SAY
THAT
IT
IS
IT
SOUNDS
VERY
MUCH
sp
THE
SAME
sp
THE
SAME
LINE
I
MEAN
IT'D
sp
BE
VERY
ODD
IF
ANY
sp
COURT
CAME
TO
A
CONCLUSION
sp
THAT
sp
ONE
sp
PUT
ON
sp
A
sp
FANCIFUL
sp
GROUNDS
sp
ERM
sp
SUSPEND
sp
OR
IGNORE
sp
ANY
sp
ANY
ER
sp
PARTICULAR
sp
PART
OF
EUROPEAN
sp
LAW
WELL
THAT'S
RIGHT
sp
MY
LORD
ERM
IT'S
A
SERIOUS
MATTER
YES
sp
BUT
ER
AND
ER
sp
AND
WE
SAY
sp
HERE
sp
THAT
ER
IN
RESPECT
OF
sp
DIRECTIVE
SEVENTY
sp
THREE
TWO
sp
THREE
NINE
sp
CONTRARY
sp
TO
WHAT
MY
LEARNED
FRIEND
sp
HAS
SAID
sp
WE
SAY
THE
PASSAGES
IN
THE
V
D
S
CASE
sp
YEAH
THAT
I'VE
ALREADY
DRAWN
YOUR
LORDSHIPS
ATTENTION
TO
sp
SAY
THAT
sp
ERM
sp
THE
POLICY
HOLDERS
sp
PROTECTION
sp
CAN
BE
GIVEN
EFFECT
sp
TO
sp
AND
ER
THAT
sp
ER
sp
THAT
sp
ER
IT
DOES
NOT
sp
HAVE
sp
ER
sp
THE
BROAD
sp
CONSTRUCTION
sp
ALL
ENCOMPASSING
sp
CONSTRUCTION
THAT
EIGHTY
FIVE
THREE
IS
THE
ONLY
sp
ROUTE
THAT
sp
MY
LEARNED
sp
FRIEND
HAS
SUBMITTED
YEAH
sp
WE
ALSO
sp
RELY
ON
THE
sp
FACT
sp
THAT
THE
CASE
sp
THAT
I'VE
DRAWN
TO
YOUR
LORDSHIPS
ATTENTION
YESTERDAY
sp
IS
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
sp
THIS
WAS
THE
CASE
sp
IN
THE
SUPPLEMENTARY
BUNDLE
sp
WHERE
YOUR
LORDSHIP
WILL
sp
RECALL
sp
THAT
sp
ER
sp
ON
THE
ISSUE
sp
OF
EXPORT
sp
CREDIT
GUARANTEE
YES
{OOV}
ANSWER
YOUR
sp
POINT
sp
MR
sp
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
IT
DOES
sp
ER
sp
ER
THIS
PARTICULAR
sp
POINT
IF
YOU
TAKE
sp
THE
DIRECTIVE
sp
AS
I
UNDERSTAND
YES
YOUR
SUSPICIONS
TELL
ME
IF
I'VE
GOT
IT
sp
WRONG
sp
ERM
sp
IT
IS
THAT
sp
ER
ERM
sp
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
sp
ARE
CONCERNED
sp
THROUGH
sp
THE
sp
CHAIN
OF
sp
COMMAND
THAT
YOU'VE
sp
IDENTIFIED
LET'S
SAY
THE
UNITED
sp
KINGDOM
IN
EFFECT
WILL
BE
LEAVING
sp
IT
TO
sp
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
TO
sp
ER
ERM
sp
TO
DEAL
WITH
sp
VIRTUALLY
sp
ALL
sp
ER
sp
ASPECTS
OF
SOLVENCY
sp
AND
sp
PROTECTION
OF
sp
POLICY
sp
HOLDERS
sp
ERM
sp
THE
sp
SUBJECT
TO
LET
sp
US
SPECIFICALLY
sp
PRESCRIBED
sp
BY
sp
THE
ER
sp
NINETEEN
EIGHTY
sp
TWO
sp
INSURANCE
sp
ACT
sp
YES
MY
LORD
sp
ERM
sp
THAT'S
ONE
PATH
sp
ONE
COULD
sp
LOOK
ER
sp
DOWN
sp
THE
THE
OTHER
PART
ONE
sp
COULD
LOOK
DOWN
sp
TO
sp
ONE
NOT
sp
IS
ARTICLE
sp
FIVE
sp
ERM
sp
YES
sp
MY
sp
LORD
sp
WHICH
IS
ER
sp
AN
OBLIGATION
sp
IMPOSED
ON
sp
NATIONAL
COURSE
sp
AMONG
OTHERS
sp
ERM
sp
WE
NEED
TO
sp
READ
sp
IT
TO
sp
OURSELVES
MM
sp
AND
YOUR
sp
POINT
IN
sp
THIS
sp
CONTEXT
sp
IT
sp
AS
I
SAY
THE
CONTEXT
IN
WHICH
I'VE
ASKED
sp
YOU
sp
TO
sp
ADDRESS
sp
ME
I
SUPPOSE
sp
YOU
WOULD
sp
SAY
sp
ERM
sp
GIVEN
sp
THE
MATTERS
ARE
ARGUABLE
OR
WHATEVER
THE
sp
TEST
IS
UNDER
THOSE
sp
ISSUES
sp
ER
sp
NEVERTHELESS
sp
IF
sp
YOU
sp
ALLOW
sp
THE
sp
CASE
THAT'S
sp
BEEN
sp
PUT
UP
sp
ERM
sp
EITHER
BY
WAY
sp
OF
sp
DEFENCE
sp
OR
sp
BY
WAY
OF
SET
UP
sp
OR
BY
WAY
OF
sp
COUNTER
sp
CLAIM
sp
TO
IMPEDE
sp
THE
sp
COLLECTION
sp
OF
sp
FUNDS
sp
ERM
sp
THEN
ER
sp
YOU
sp
ARE
sp
NOT
sp
THEN
YOU
ARE
ERM
sp
ERM
sp
TAKING
A
sp
MEASURE
sp
WHICH
sp
COULD
sp
COULD
JEOPARDIZE
sp
THE
{OOV}
OF
sp
THE
OBJECTIVES
OF
sp
THIS
sp
TREATY
sp
ER
sp
WHEREAS
I
IMAGE
YOU
sp
WILL
sp
SAY
OR
sp
YOU
sp
MIGHT
SAY
I
DON'T
sp
KNOW
sp
ERM
sp
PROVIDED
THIS
DOESN'T
sp
IMPEDE
sp
THE
sp
COLLECTION
sp
OF
sp
CENTRAL
sp
{OOV}
sp
FUNDS
sp
ERM
sp
IN
THE
MEANTIME
sp
IF
sp
ER
sp
THE
DEFENDANTS
WISH
TO
sp
PURSUE
sp
THEIR
sp
COUNTERCLAIM
TO
sp
TRIAL
THEN
ER
THERE'S
sp
NOTHING
TO
PREVENT
sp
THEM
sp
FROM
DOING
SO
sp
MY
LORD
sp
OUR
IMMEDIATE
sp
CONCERN
IS
PRECISELY
sp
THE
ONE
YOU'VE
IDENTIFIED
sp
THE
COLLECTION
OF
MONIES
FROM
CENTRAL
YEAH
sp
FUND
ER
AND
WE
SAY
sp
THAT
sp
ER
ER
sp
WE
HOPE
YOUR
sp
LORDSHIP
WILL
BE
WITH
US
ON
THE
MAIN
ISSUES
sp
BUT
IF
YOUR
NOT
sp
WE
SAY
THERE
ARE
VERY
POWERFUL
sp
REASONS
sp
OF
ENGLISH
sp
AND
COMMUNITY
LAW
INCLUDING
sp
ER
THE
OBLIGATION
ON
THE
sp
COURT
UNDER
ARTICLE
sp
FIVE
sp
TO
ENSURE
sp
THAT
sp
THE
ER
sp
THE
THE
TRIALS
SOME
sp
TWO
YEARS
sp
HENCE
sp
LASTING
SOME
sp
FIVE
sp
WEEKS
WITH
ALL
sp
THE
EXPERT
EVIDENCE
sp
MY
LEARNED
FRIEND
SAYS
WILL
BE
NECESSARY
sp
SHOULD
NOT
IN
THE
sp
INTERIM
sp
HAVE
sp
THE
EFFECT
sp
OF
ER
sp
FRUSTRATING
sp
ER
sp
THE
OPERATION
sp
OF
sp
ER
sp
APPARENTLY
VALID
sp
PROVISIONS
IN
THE
UNITED
KINGDOM
STATUTES
sp
AND
THE
LLOYDS
ACTS
sp
AND
sp
BYELAWS
sp
WHICH
ER
sp
ARE
THEMSELVES
MEASURES
sp
THAT
HAVE
BEEN
ADOPTED
sp
SO
AS
TO
sp
PURSUE
sp
THE
sp
POLICY
sp
WELL
sp
YEAH
YEAH
SORRY
TO
sp
HAVE
TO
STOP
YOU
AGAIN
sp
BUT
I
THINK
WITH
sp
GREAT
RESPECT
sp
ONE
sp
COULD
I
sp
THINK
THIS
sp
POINT
SHORTER
I'M
ONLY
PUTTING
IT
sp
BACK
TO
MAKE
SURE
YES
I
UNDERSTAND
sp
IT
sp
IS
sp
THAT
sp
ERM
sp
EVEN
GIVEN
THAT
sp
THIS
sp
CASE
IS
sp
ARGUABLE
sp
ERM
sp
ALRIGHT
sp
LET
IT
sp
BE
ARGUED
OUT
sp
BUT
sp
IF
sp
IF
sp
ER
sp
BEFORE
IT
IS
ARGUED
OUT
sp
YOU'RE
NOT
sp
ENTITLED
sp
TO
sp
COLLECT
sp
MONEY
sp
FROM
A
SIMPLE
sp
FUND
sp
YOU
ARE
sp
FRUSTRATING
THE
OBJECTIVES
sp
OF
THE
DIRECTIVE
sp
YES
sp
MY
LORD
AND
THAT
sp
IS
sp
ERM
ERM
sp
THE
sp
WAY
I
sp
SUGGEST
IT
sp
TO
sp
YOU
sp
THAT
WOULD
sp
BE
DIRECTLY
sp
CONTRARY
TO
ARTICLE
sp
FIVE
sp
YES
sp
MY
LORD
sp
NOTHING
TO
STOP
THE
sp
DEFENDANTS
IF
sp
THEY
sp
ER
sp
WISH
sp
TO
DO
SO
sp
PURSUING
sp
PREPARING
sp
THEIR
sp
COUNTERCLAIM
sp
ERM
sp
BUT
sp
THE
ONE
THING
IT
sp
CAN
NOT
sp
DO
sp
EVEN
IF
sp
THE
sp
ENGLISH
sp
LAW
sp
FOR
EXAMPLE
sp
SET
OFF
sp
WOULD
OTHERWISE
sp
PERMIT
IT
sp
ER
sp
IS
TO
sp
WOULD
WOULD
sp
BE
TO
PREVENT
sp
THE
sp
THE
COLLECTION
sp
OF
sp
FUNDS
sp
BECAUSE
sp
IF
THE
sp
ENGLISH
sp
LAW
WAS
SET
OFF
AND
sp
DID
sp
DO
sp
THAT
sp
THAT
sp
WOULD
BE
RUNNING
CONTRARY
TO
sp
THE
DIRECTIVE
sp
MM
AND
sp
ERM
sp
SOMETHING
WHICH
sp
THIS
sp
COURT
ER
sp
PRESUMABLY
NOW
DOESN'T
sp
HAVE
ANY
JURISDICTION
sp
TO
DO
OTHERWISE
sp
IT
sp
WOULD
BE
BREACH
sp
OF
ARTICLE
sp
FIVE
ER
YES
sp
MY
LORD
THERE'S
THE
PRIOR
sp
POINT
sp
THAT
sp
WE
sp
ER
sp
WE
WOULD
SUBMIT
AS
INDICATED
IN
THE
SKELETON
sp
OF
sp
THE
ELEVENTH
sp
OF
NOVEMBER
sp
THAT
ON
ITS
TRUE
CONSTRUCTION
sp
ERM
sp
THE
CENTRAL
sp
FUND
sp
BYELAW
sp
ARTICLE
sp
TEN
sp
IN
sp
PARTICULAR
sp
ER
sp
GIVES
sp
RISE
TO
sp
A
PAYMENT
OF
A
SPECIFIED
sp
SUM
sp
ASCERTAIN
SUM
sp
PAYABLE
sp
FORTHWITH
sp
ON
DEMAND
sp
IT'S
RATHER
LIKE
sp
THE
EXAMPLE
YOUR
LORDSHIP
sp
GAVE
OF
sp
THE
sp
BARCLAYCARD
OR
sp
THE
sp
CHEQUE
sp
IF
MY
LEARNED
sp
FRIEND
IS
sp
RIGHT
sp
WELL
MAYBE
THAT
WOULD
BE
TO
ENGLISH
sp
THAT'S
RIGHT
{CG}
sp
THAT
WOULD
BE
TO
ENGLISH
LAW
sp
QUESTIONS
WHICH
sp
WE'RE
sp
CERTAIN
sp
OF
INTEREST
TODAY
sp
NO
NO
MY
LORD
sp
ER
sp
ON
sp
WHETHER
OR
NOT
ERM
THI
THIS
sp
ERM
sp
EUROPEAN
sp
COMMUNITY
sp
DEFENCE
sp
COULD
AMOUNT
sp
TO
A
SET
OFF
sp
ER
sp
IN
THE
sp
FACE
OF
sp
ERM
sp
RULE
TEN
THE
sp
CENTRAL
OF
FUND
BYELAW
sp
YES
sp
MY
sp
LORD
VERY
INTERESTING
sp
QUESTION
sp
TO
ADDRESS
YES
sp
AS
A
MATTER
OF
PURE
ENGLISH
LAW
AT
THE
MOMENT
I
HAVE
NO
IDEA
WHAT
THE
ANSWER
IS
sp
YES
sp
MY
sp
LORD
sp
ERM
sp
WHAT
sp
I
sp
WAS
sp
PUTTING
TO
YOU
sp
WAS
DO
YOU
DO
YOU
SAY
THAT
EVEN
IF
IT
WOULD
AS
A
MATTER
sp
OF
sp
PURE
ENGLISH
sp
LAW
IT
IS
OVERRIDDEN
sp
BY
sp
COMMUNITY
sp
LAW
sp
ERM
ER
ER
sp
AT
LEAST
ER
AT
sp
LEAST
FOR
sp
THE
sp
TIME
sp
BEING
sp
YES
sp
MY
sp
LORD
sp
BECAUSE
ER
IF
IT
WASN'T
sp
THEN
THERE
WOULD
sp
BE
sp
A
sp
FRUSTRATION
sp
OF
DIRECTIVE
SEVENTY
sp
THREE
TWO
THREE
sp
NINE
sp
YES
sp
MY
LORD
YEAH
sp
FOLLOW
THAT
ER
IN
SO
FAR
AS
sp
IT'S
IT'S
A
sp
COUNTERCLAIM
sp
OF
sp
COURSE
ERM
BUT
sp
THEN
ER
ER
UNLIKE
A
sp
A
sp
SET
OFF
sp
WITH
THE
SET
OFF
sp
WAS
ESTABLISHED
AS
sp
A
MATTER
OF
ENGLISH
sp
LAW
THAT
AS
sp
FAR
AS
THE
sp
COUNTERCLAIM
sp
IS
sp
CONCERNED
THE
sp
COURSE
AS
I
UNDERSTAND
THE
RULES
IS
sp
A
VERY
LARGE
sp
MEASURE
sp
OF
sp
DISCRETION
sp
AS
TO
WHETHER
OR
sp
NOT
sp
IT
ER
sp
IT
STAYS
THE
sp
CLAIM
sp
ON
sp
OR
ERM
ERM
sp
SIMPLY
SAY
NO
THEY'D
BE
A
JUDGMENT
sp
{OOV}
CLAIM
sp
IMMEDIATE
sp
ENFORCEMENT
AND
OF
sp
THE
COUNTERCLAIM
GO
OFF
sp
TO
sp
TRIAL
sp
YES
sp
MY
sp
LORD
YES
MY
LORD
I
sp
TIE
THE
I
WAS
JUST
TRYING
sp
TO
TIE
THE
SUBMISSION
sp
{OOV}
sp
BACK
sp
TO
sp
THE
sp
TO
sp
THE
SITUATION
sp
IN
WHICH
sp
WE
ARE
sp
PRESENTLY
sp
IN
sp
YES
MY
LORD
YES
sp
MY
LORD
I
THINK
IT'S
ALSO
HELPFUL
TO
sp
ADD
sp
THAT
IN
THE
sp
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
CASE
sp
ERM
sp
ER
sp
YOUR
LORDSHIP
sp
WILL
sp
FIND
sp
AT
sp
ER
sp
MAYBE
HELPFUL
IF
YOU
COULD
VERY
sp
BRIEFLY
LOOK
sp
AT
THAT
JUDGMENT
MY
LORD
THAT'S
ERM
sp
THIS
IS
IN
THE
sp
SUPPLEMENTARY
ER
sp
THE
sp
THE
SMALL
FILE
THAT'S
YOUR
sp
THAT
IS
YOUR
sp
BLUE
BUNDLE
sp
IT
IS
MY
sp
BLUE
BUNDLE
sp
MY
sp
LORD
sp
YES
sp
ER
sp
AND
sp
TAB
sp
MY
LORD
I'M
AFRAID
sp
I
DON'T
I
DON'T
HAVE
sp
A
sp
TAB
ON
MY
NOTE
sp
WHAT'S
sp
IT
sp
FOR
sp
YES
sp
TAB
sp
SEVEN
sp
FOUR
sp
MY
sp
LORD
sp
YES
sp
AND
sp
MY
LORD
sp
ER
sp
IN
RELATION
sp
TO
sp
THIS
JUDGMENT
sp
ER
sp
YOU'VE
sp
GOT
sp
THE
sp
COURTS
SETTING
OUT
sp
THE
sp
PRINCIPAL
sp
AT
PAGE
sp
ER
sp
ONE
sp
STROKE
sp
FIVE
sp
FORTY
sp
PARAGRAPH
sp
FOURTEEN
OF
sp
THE
sp
JUDGMENT
sp
THAT'S
THE
PRINCIPAL
OF
SUSPENSION
sp
AND
IT'S
sp
THEN
GOT
IT'S
CONDITIONS
FOR
SUSPENSION
ON
THE
NEXT
PAGE
sp
PARAGRAPH
sp
TWENTY
TWO
I
sp
HAVEN'T
ACTUALLY
GOT
THE
sp
GOT
sp
PAGE
sp
IT'S
sp
RATHER
A
LONG
sp
CASE
sp
IT
IS
A
LONG
CASE
sp
MY
sp
LORD
WHERE
sp
WHERE
FIVE
sp
FORTY
FIVE
FORTY
sp
PARAGRAPH
sp
ERM
PARAGRAPH
FOURTEEN
sp
THIS
IS
THE
PRINCIPAL
sp
OF
SUSPENSION
sp
YES
sp
THEN
OVERLEAF
MY
LORD
YOU'VE
GOT
THE
CONDITIONS
sp
OF
SUSPENSION
BEING
INDICATED
BY
THE
COURT
sp
JUSTICE
sp
YES
AND
MY
LORD
YOU'LL
OF
NOTICED
THAT
IN
PARAGRAPH
ERM
sp
ER
sp
THIRTY
sp
ER
sp
THEY
TALK
ABOUT
sp
THE
sp
IMPORTANCE
sp
OF
TAKING
THE
COMMUNITY
INTEREST
INTO
ACCOUNT
sp
AND
HAVE
sp
PROPER
GUARANTEES
sp
AND
IN
THIS
INSTANCE
OVERLEAF
sp
ON
PAGE
sp
FIVE
sp
FORTY
sp
FOUR
sp
ER
sp
THEY
sp
TALK
ABOUT
sp
THE
FINANCIAL
RISK
TO
THE
COMMUNITY
THIS
OF
COURSE
WAS
IN
THE
sp
AGRICULTURAL
YES
SECTOR
A
DIFFERENT
SECTOR
sp
WE'RE
ONLY
RELYING
ON
IT
sp
BY
ANALOGY
sp
THEY
TALK
ABOUT
THE
POSITION
OF
REQUIRING
THE
APPLICANT
BY
sp
GUARANTEE
SUCH
AS
sp
THE
DEPOSIT
OF
MONEY
sp
OR
OTHER
SECURITY
sp
AND
MY
LORD
sp
OUR
SUBMISSION
sp
IS
IS
VERY
SIMPLE
sp
ER
sp
THAT
sp
ER
sp
THE
sp
THE
MEASURE
sp
THAT
sp
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
ARE
sp
SEEKING
TO
RECOVER
UNDER
sp
ARE
LINKED
INTO
sp
SOLVENCY
sp
AND
THE
sp
PAYMENT
OF
sp
POLICY
HOLDERS
sp
THERE'S
A
COMMUNITY
sp
INTEREST
THERE
sp
IN
THE
sp
DIRECTIVE
sp
BUT
sp
IF
sp
ER
sp
FOR
ANY
REASON
sp
YOUR
sp
LORDSHIP
sp
FEELS
THERE'S
A
sp
A
MATTER
THAT
sp
NEEDS
TO
GO
sp
ON
AND
sp
FURTHER
TO
sp
TO
sp
TO
A
LENGTHY
TRIAL
sp
THAT
IN
THE
INTERIM
sp
WHAT
WOULD
BE
COMPATIBLE
WITH
THE
COMMUNITY
sp
OBJECT
sp
WOULD
sp
BE
sp
TO
ENSURE
THAT
sp
THE
MONIES
sp
ARE
RECOVERED
INTO
SETTLEMENT
sp
FUND
ER
SO
THAT
THE
sp
SOLVENCY
sp
AND
PAYMENT
sp
POLICY
HOLDERS
CAN
CONTINUE
sp
YES
sp
BUT
AS
WE
sp
STRESS
sp
THIS
IS
A
SUBSIDIARY
ARGUMENT
sp
THAT
sp
WE
sp
POINT
sp
YES
sp
THOSE
ARE
THOSE
sp
ARE
THE
THREE
GROUNDS
THEN
ON
sp
WHICH
sp
YOU
sp
YES
MY
LORD
sp
LET'S
sp
PUT
sp
IT
ACCURATELY
ERM
sp
IT
sp
WOULD
sp
BE
AS
sp
PRESENTLY
ADVISED
SUBMITTING
sp
TO
ME
sp
IN
EFFECT
EVENTS
sp
WHICH
{OOV}
sp
YES
sp
MY
LORD
sp
POSSIBLE
sp
THEN
sp
YES
sp
MY
sp
LORD
sp
YES
sp
WELL
IS
THERE
ANY
MORE
YOU
WANT
TO
sp
SAY
ON
THAT
IS
ER
ER
ER
sp
SUBJECT
TO
MR
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
AS
YOU
sp
SAY
OF
COURSE
sp
ERM
sp
I
JUST
SIMPLY
WANTED
sp
TO
sp
KNOW
sp
ERM
sp
SO
THAT
I
sp
CAN
sp
HAVE
A
A
A
LOOK
sp
ERM
sp
AT
sp
WHAT
ON
sp
ONE
VIEW
ERM
sp
MIGHT
sp
BE
sp
THE
sp
THE
CASE
IT
sp
MIGHT
CLEAR
sp
BE
sp
THE
CONCLUSION
sp
THAT
sp
YOU
ER
sp
INCORRECT
sp
IN
OR
sp
PARTIALLY
sp
INCORRECT
OR
I
WAS
UNABLE
TO
ANSWER
ALL
sp
THE
QUESTIONS
sp
ER
AT
THIS
STAGE
sp
YES
YES
I
sp
THINK
sp
THEN
MY
LORD
I
I
DO
HAVE
sp
SOME
sp
OTHER
OBSERVATIONS
sp
ON
sp
MATTERS
WITH
MR
sp
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
BUT
sp
IT
MAYBE
MORE
sp
ECONOMICAL
AND
EFFECTIVE
sp
ON
THE
NEW
ISSUES
sp
TO
WAIT
UNTIL
AFTER
MR
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
HAS
ADDRESSED
YOU
sp
AND
sp
TO
DEAL
WITH
THEM
sp
AT
ONE
POINT
sp
I
sp
WOULD
sp
OF
THOUGHT
SO
MR
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
YES
YES
sp
ERM
sp
ALRIGHT
WELL
sp
MR
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
MR
sp
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
ERM
sp
THIS
IS
A
RATHER
ODD
EXERCISE
IN
A
WAY
AND
AS
YOU
KNOW
MY
FIRST
THOUGHTS
sp
WERE
THEY
WERE
sp
BETTER
sp
TO
LEAVE
IT
TO
SEE
WHAT
HOW
THE
sp
HOW
THE
JUDGMENT
sp
CAME
sp
OUT
sp
OF
sp
IT
BUT
sp
ERM
ERM
sp
I
DO
REGARD
THE
MATTER
AS
ER
AS
sp
A
AS
A
sp
WHOLE
sp
AS
OF
sp
VERY
CONSIDERABLE
IMPORTANCE
sp
BOTH
TO
sp
BOTH
SIDES
OF
sp
THIS
sp
CASE
AND
sp
ERM
IT
sp
DID
SEEM
TO
sp
ME
ON
sp
CONSIDERING
sp
IT
ER
sp
FROM
sp
RECOVERING
sp
FROM
THE
sp
DENTIST
THAT
sp
ER
sp
AN
AN
OUTLINE
sp
OF
sp
ERM
OH
YES
sp
WHAT
sp
PARTIES
sp
MIGHT
sp
ERM
sp
BE
MINDED
sp
TO
sp
YES
sp
CONTEND
AND
sp
SUBMIT
sp
YES
sp
ER
sp
IN
CERTAIN
EVENTS
sp
MIGHT
sp
BE
HELPFUL
sp
MY
LORD
YES
YES
sp
OH
sp
MY
LORD
I
THINK
THERE
ARE
I
THINK
I'M
NOT
sp
I
THINK
sp
BOUND
sp
NY
ANYTHING
sp
YOU
HAVE
SAID
sp
THIS
AFTERNOON
IT'S
JUST
IF
YOU'RE
ABLE
sp
TO
INDICATION
sp
OR
sp
YOU
IF
sp
YOU
sp
WANT
sp
TO
KEEP
YOUR
sp
POWDER
DRY
YOU'RE
PERFECTLY
ENTITLED
TO
DO
SO
MY
LORD
I'M
HAPPY
TO
GIVE
sp
AN
INDICATION
sp
AND
YES
sp
WITH
THE
CAVEAT
THAT
sp
IN
THE
LIGHT
OF
YOUR
LORDSHIP
'S
JUDGEMENT
WE
sp
WE
MAY
sp
WISH
TO
sp
{OOV}
AND
sp
CHANGE
sp
ERM
sp
FIRST
OF
ALL
WITH
REGARDS
TO
THE
COMMISSION
sp
YOUR
LORD
YOUR
LORDSHIPS
TAKEN
TO
DELIMITIS
sp
ERM
sp
DELIMITIS
WAS
THE
CASE
OF
ONE
WHICH
THE
COMMISSIONS
sp
NOTICED
WAS
sp
GROUNDED
sp
ERM
sp
YOUR
LORDSHIP
OF
COURSE
HAS
THE
RIGHT
TO
SEEK
INFORMATION
sp
TO
THE
COMMISSION
sp
TO
SEEK
sp
ERM
sp
INFORMATION
AS
TO
THE
STATUS
OF
sp
THE
PROCEEDINGS
WHETHER
THE
COMMISSION
HAVE
ANY
MARKET
REPORTS
sp
WHICH
MAYBE
USEFUL
AND
SO
ON
MM
sp
YOUR
LORDSHIP
CAN'T
ASK
FOR
INFORMATION
sp
WHICH
MAYBE
CONFIDENTIAL
TO
SOME
OTHER
PARTY
sp
FOR
EXAMPLE
WHAT
HAPPENED
TO
THE
SUGAR
CASE
NO
NO
I
CAN'T
I
CAN'T
ANSWER
sp
THE
ANSWER
TO
sp
THE
sp
QUESTIONS
sp
EITHER
CAN
I
MY
LORD
I
DON'T
THINK
YOU
CAN
SADLY
NO
sp
I
BUT
sp
BUT
ER
BUT
sp
B
sp
B
sp
BUT
FORTUNATELY
THAT'S
YOUR
LORDSHIPS
sp
TASK
{LG}
ER
IN
A
sp
WAY
ERM
DOES
sp
IT
SO
IN
IN
A
WAY
I
MEAN
sp
I'M
sp
REALLY
ALMOST
sp
BE
IN
THIS
sp
CASE
sp
BE
LIMITED
sp
TO
SIMPLY
SAYING
CAN
YOU
GIVE
ANY
sp
IDEA
sp
WHEN
sp
YOU'RE
LIKELY
sp
TO
sp
BE
ABLE
TO
sp
PRODUCE
ANYTHING
sp
OTHER
AND
AND
THEY
MAY
VERY
WELL
sp
MY
LORD
SAY
WELL
sp
WE
HAVE
BEEN
WATCHING
WITH
GREAT
INTEREST
WHAT
sp
YOUR
LORDSHIP
HAS
BEEN
DOING
sp
IF
I
AND
WHEN
IF
I
WAS
THEM
sp
THAT'S
WHAT
PRECISELY
I'D
DO
TOO
sp
YEAH
sp
MY
LORDSHIP
MAY
WISH
TO
GO
BACK
sp
TO
sp
THE
DENTIST
sp
MM
sp
ERM
sp
AND
THEY
MAY
SAY
YES
AND
THEY
HAVE
THAT
RIGHT
TO
sp
SAY
WELL
IT'S
IN
THE
NATIONAL
COURT
sp
WE'RE
GOING
TO
sp
LEAVE
IT
THERE
sp
ERM
sp
WELL
SO
SO
I
THINK
WE
WOULD
BE
RELUCTANT
TO
SEE
IT
GO
TO
THE
COMMISSION
sp
ERM
sp
DELIMITIS
DOES
SAY
IN
THE
PARAGRAPH
AFTER
WHAT
sp
AFTER
{OOV}
FIFTY
THREE
IT
SAYS
WELL
YOUR
ALTERNATIVES
IS
sp
TO
sp
SEND
IT
OFF
sp
TO
LUXEMBOURG
MM
AND
THAT
MAYBE
SOMETHING
YOUR
LORDSHIP
sp
MAY
WISH
sp
TO
CONSIDER
sp
I'M
A
LITTLE
BIT
BAFFLED
AS
TO
WHY
MY
LEARNED
FRIEND
HAS
GONE
FOR
CASES
ON
sp
INTERIM
MEASURES
sp
WE'RE
NOT
SEEKING
INTERIM
RELIEF
sp
WE
HAVEN'T
SORTED
INTERIM
INJUNCTION
sp
ERM
sp
TO
SUSPEND
THE
VALIDITY
OF
ANY
PARTICULAR
sp
MEASURE
sp
THAT
WAS
THE
BASIS
OF
ALL
OF
sp
HIS
CASE
sp
WELL
THAT
MAYBE
sp
TRUE
BUT
I
THINK
IT'S
sp
WORKING
OFF
AN
ANALOGY
ON
sp
THAT
sp
TURNING
IT
sp
THE
OTHER
WAY
ROUND
AND
sp
SAYING
WELL
sp
ERM
sp
IF
IF
I
GOT
TO
sp
THE
STAGE
sp
OF
sp
ERM
sp
WELL
POSSIBLY
EVEN
SEEKING
SOME
INFORMATION
FROM
THE
sp
COMMISSION
sp
WELL
CERTAINLY
IF
I
sp
GAVE
YOU
A
sp
CONCLUSION
FOR
EXAMPLE
sp
THAT
IT
sp
SHOULD
sp
BE
REFERRED
ERM
sp
AND
I
THINK
AGAIN
sp
EVEN
IF
I
CAME
TO
THE
CONCLUSION
sp
THAT
I
sp
SHOULD
sp
NEITHER
WANT
sp
ER
sp
THERE'S
NO
POINT
IN
SEEKING
sp
INFORMATION
sp
FROM
sp
THE
sp
COMMISSION
NOR
sp
SHOULD
I
REFER
sp
IT
OR
AT
sp
LEAST
REFER
TO
THE
sp
STAGE
sp
ERM
sp
WHAT
HIS
sp
CLIENTS
WOULD
sp
BE
SAYING
sp
SHOULD
sp
BE
DONE
IN
THE
sp
INTERIM
sp
AND
WHAT
HE
SAYS
IN
sp
EFFECT
sp
FOR
THE
REASON
sp
HE'S
OUTLINED
sp
IS
sp
ER
THAT
WE
sp
SHOULD
sp
PROCEED
ON
THE
sp
BASIS
OF
sp
ERM
sp
THE
VALIDITY
sp
OF
THE
sp
ACT
sp
ERM
AND
sp
OF
sp
THE
sp
BYELAWS
sp
MM
BUT
sp
MY
LORD
sp
THAT
sp
CAN
sp
I
TAKE
THAT
sp
AND
AND
THEN
sp
FOLLOWING
sp
THROUGH
THE
sp
SUGGESTION
I'VE
sp
PUT
sp
TO
sp
HIM
sp
ERM
sp
ERM
sp
ON
sp
ONE
SCENARIO
AT
sp
LEAST
sp
TO
IT
COULD
EVEN
sp
YOU
ERM
sp
PERFECTLY
sp
ERM
sp
ABLE
sp
TO
sp
PURSUE
YOUR
sp
COUNTERCLAIM
sp
MM
sp
MM
sp
BUT
NOT
sp
TO
sp
USE
IT
sp
BY
WAY
OF
sp
FENDING
OFF
sp
CALLS
FOR
sp
CENTRAL
sp
FUND
sp
MONEY
sp
MM
THAT
AGAIN
sp
IS
THE
SAME
EXPRESSION
sp
AS
sp
THAT
IS
{OOV}
sp
MR
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
BOTTOM
sp
LINE
MM
sp
ER
sp
HE
sp
WANTS
sp
MONEY
COMING
IN
TO
THE
CENTRAL
sp
FUND
sp
ER
IF
HAS
IN
sp
TWO
YEARS
TIME
sp
TO
FACE
A
sp
A
TRIAL
sp
THESE
ALLEGATIONS
sp
SO
BE
IT
BUT
sp
MEANWHILE
sp
HE
WANTS
sp
THE
MONEY
TO
sp
COME
IN
TO
sp
THE
sp
CENTRAL
sp
FUND
sp
FOR
THE
sp
REASON
HE'S
OUTLINED
sp
WELL
LET
sp
ME
TAKE
sp
TAKE
THAT
STAGE
sp
BY
STAGE
MM
FIRST
OF
ALL
IF
THERE'S
A
REFERENCE
sp
NO
QUESTION
OF
VALIDITY
sp
ARISES
sp
WHAT
WOULD
HAPPEN
IS
PROCEEDINGS
ARE
STAYED
sp
SUBJECT
sp
TO
TURNS
sp
THAT
YOUR
LORDSHIP
MAY
sp
DIRECT
OR
ORDER
sp
AND
THEN
IS
THAT
sp
IS
THAT
sp
THAT'S
WHAT
HAPPENS
sp
WELL
IS
IT
IS
WHAT
HAPPENS
sp
IS
IT
sp
WHAT'S
sp
BOUND
sp
TO
sp
HAPPEN
NO
MY
LORD
NO
sp
MY
LORD
THAT
IS
sp
WHAT
PRIMA
FACIE
sp
HAPPENS
I
MEAN
MY
LORDSHIP
WELL
IS
IT
sp
THE
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
sp
CASE
OR
I
MEAN
OR
sp
OR
sp
OBVIOUSLY
I
STAYED
sp
IT
ERM
WELL
THERE
WAS
NOTHING
sp
LEFT
WHICH
WOULDN'T
{OOV}
THERE
WAS
NO
POINT
IN
DOING
ANYTHING
ELSE
NO
NO
MY
LORD
THAT'S
RIGHT
sp
BUT
sp
BUT
THAT
DOESN'T
MEAN
TO
SAY
THAT
IF
YOUR
LORDSHIP
sp
DIDN'T
STAYED
sp
THERE
WOULD
BE
ANY
sp
IF
YOUR
LORDSHIP
DID
OR
DIDN'T
STAYED
OR
ANY
PART
OF
IT
DOESN'T
COMPUTE
sp
A
VALIDITY
OF
SECTION
FOURTEEN
UNTIL
ONE'S
GOT
A
JUDGMENT
SAYING
sp
IT'S
BAD
sp
FOR
EXAMPLE
sp
I
sp
MEAN
THAT'S
WHAT
WE'RE
ARGUING
ABOUT
UNTIL
SUCH
AND
sp
THE
WELL
THAT'S
sp
THAT'S
RIGHT
sp
YOU'RE
QUITE
RIGHT
MR
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
THAT'S
sp
WHY
I
THEN
sp
I
THEN
sp
PUT
sp
MR
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
sp
POINTS
IN
THE
CONTEXT
OF
WHERE
WE'VE
sp
GOT
TO
MM
sp
BECAUSE
ER
IF
HE
IF
HE
DIDN'T
GET
A
sp
CLEAN
WIN
ON
sp
THESE
sp
MY
LORD
POINTS
IF
HE
DIDN'T
I
THINK
sp
THAT'S
ONLY
sp
THE
sp
TIME
A
sp
PROBLEM
sp
ARISES
sp
YES
sp
ERM
sp
THAT
THE
QUESTION
THEN
ARISES
ARE
YOU
sp
ARE
YOU
ER
sp
ABLE
PUT
sp
THE
sp
MATTER
UP
AS
A
sp
AS
A
sp
DEFENCE
sp
AS
A
SET
OFF
OR
AS
A
sp
COUNTERCLAIM
sp
WITH
sp
A
sp
STAY
OF
EXECUTION
sp
ON
sp
THE
sp
CLAIM
sp
MY
LORD
sp
ERM
sp
FIRST
OF
ALL
IF
YOUR
LORDSHIP
STAYED
THE
COUNTERCLAIM
sp
YOUR
LORDSHIP
WOULD
BE
STAYING
THE
CLAIM
UNDER
ARTICLE
EIGHTY
sp
FIVE
AND
sp
YOUR
sp
LORDSHIP
WOULD
sp
BE
DENYING
THE
DIRECT
EFFECT
sp
OF
ARTICLE
EIGHTY
sp
FIVE
sp
AND
OF
COURSE
sp
NO
NO
NO
sp
NO
sp
NO
NO
STAY
NO
sp
STAY
OF
sp
THE
sp
COUNTERCLAIM
sp
WELL
sp
MY
LORD
YES
THE
STAY
OF
THE
sp
COUNTERCLAIM
AS
A
SET
OFF
sp
THAT
WOULD
THEN
BE
DENYING
ARTICLE
EIGHTY
FIVE
AS
A
SHIELD
sp
WELL
OF
COURSE
IT
WOULDN'T
UNDERMINE
THE
DEFENCES
BASED
UPON
ARTICLE
EIGHTY
FIVE
PER
SE
sp
THE
OTHER
WAYS
I
MEAN
THE
SET
OFF
IS
SIMPLY
sp
ONE
WAY
IN
WHICH
THE
DEFENCE
ARISES
IT
ARISES
IN
THREE
OTHER
WAYS
AS
sp
YOUR
LORDSHIP
SEEMS
TO
HAVE
AN
OPINION
sp
SECURITY
OR
SET
OFF
IS
SIMPLY
sp
ONE
OF
THE
WAYS
{OOV}
THE
DEFENCE
sp
BUT
IT'S
NOT
THE
ONLY
DEFENCE
sp
SO
TO
SIMPLY
STATE
THAT
sp
PART
OF
THE
DEFENCE
sp
WOULD
NOT
sp
GET
sp
THE
sp
WOULD
sp
NOT
sp
MEAN
THAT
THE
ARTICLE
EIGHTY
FIVE
sp
DEFENCE
sp
ERM
sp
ER
sp
EVAPORATED
IN
ANY
WAY
SHAPE
sp
OR
FORM
sp
THE
WHOLE
DEFENCE
WOULD
sp
HAVE
TO
BE
STAYED
SO
THAT
THERE
WAS
NONE
sp
NO
DEFENCE
LEFT
sp
A
DEFENCE
ON
ARTICLE
EIGHTY
sp
FIVE
sp
THERE
ARE
INCIDENTALLY
I
THINK
BITS
OF
sp
EVEN
{OOV}
THERE
IS
A
DUTY
OF
CARE
ISN'T
THERE
WHICH
sp
THERE'S
{OOV}
sp
DUTIES
sp
FLOATING
sp
AROUND
sp
IN
YOUR
sp
DEFENCE
sp
SOMEWHERE
ER
YES
AND
CO
sp
YES
sp
MY
LORD
THERE
IS
OF
COURSE
A
GREAT
DEAL
MORE
IN
RESPECTIVE
ALTHOUGH
I
SUSPECT
THERE'S
THERE'S
WHAT
YOU'RE
sp
GON
NA
STAND
sp
ON
sp
{OOV}
THEY
sp
ER
sp
THEY
MAY
WELL
MY
sp
LORD
MM
sp
WHICH
HAVE
TO
BE
ER
ER
I'D
HEARD
IT'S
ROUND
sp
ABOUT
sp
JANUARY
sp
SOMETIME
IS
THAT
RIGHT
FEBRUARY
sp
THE
TWENTY
EIGHTH
sp
IS
IT
sp
FEBRUARY
THE
TWENTY
sp
EIGHTH
END
OF
FEBRUARY
sp
YEAH
sp
MY
LORD
SO
OF
COURSE
ERM
STAYING
THE
COUNTERCLAIM
AS
A
SET
OFF
sp
WOULDN'T
sp
REALLY
sp
PROGRESS
MUCH
FURTHER
BECAUSE
AFTER
EIGHTY
FIVE
I
MEAN
THAT'S
SIMPLY
A
SUBSIDIARY
WAY
IN
WHICH
sp
THE
DEFENCE
ARISES
ARTICLE
EIGHTY
sp
FIVE
ARISES
sp
PRIMARILY
sp
BECAUSE
WE
SAY
UNDERLYING
THE
ARRANGEMENTS
ARE
VOID
AND
YOU'RE
ENFORCING
SOMETHING
sp
WHICH
IS
VOID
AND
YOU
CAN'T
DO
IT
sp
THAT'S
NOT
A
SET
OFF
sp
CLAIM
sp
BUT
sp
YOUR
LORDSHIP
I
MEAN
sp
MY
LORD
THAT'S
WHY
THAT
DOESN'T
sp
REALLY
GET
THEM
ANY
FURTHER
MY
sp
LORD
THEY'VE
ALWAYS
HAD
sp
OUTSTANDING
WHICH
THEY'VE
NEVER
PURSUED
sp
ER
FOR
ORDER
sp
FOURTEEN
sp
SO
THEY
CAN
ALWAYS
sp
TI
sp
TRY
AS
THEY
SAID
THEY
WILL
FOR
sp
THE
OTHER
sp
ERM
sp
ERM
sp
PREEMPTIVE
sp
ATTACKS
UPON
US
MM
ERM
sp
STRIKE
OUT
INTERIM
PAYMENT
sp
ORDER
FOURTEEN
sp
ER
ITSELF
THERE'S
ALWAYS
STILL
AVAILABLE
TO
sp
THEM
sp
ERM
sp
THAT
THE
OTHER
SIDE
OF
THE
COIN
IS
IF
THEY
GET
THEIR
MONEY
AND
OF
COURSE
THEY'RE
GOING
TO
BE
THREATENING
BANKRUPTCY
FOR
SOME
FOUR
THOUSAND
ODD
sp
NAMES
sp
I
MEAN
THAT'S
sp
THAT'S
EQUALLY
DEVASTATING
TO
INDIVIDUALS
ERM
sp
MY
sp
LORD
sp
ONE
WOULD
BE
INTO
A
sp
{OOV}
TYPE
OF
sp
ARGUMENT
sp
ON
BALANCE
OF
CONVENIENCE
IF
sp
WE
WERE
AT
THIS
STAGE
sp
ONE
WOULD
BE
CONSIDERING
THE
BANKRUPTCY
sp
OF
THE
NAMES
sp
WHETHER
THEY
HAVE
THE
FUNDS
TO
PAY
EVEN
IF
JUDGMENT
IS
GIVEN
AGAINST
THEM
BECAUSE
sp
VAST
MAJORITY
sp
DON'T
sp
AND
WHAT
WOULD
BE
THE
POINT
OF
GIVING
JUDGMENT
{OOV}
THIS
ORDER
FOURTEEN
CASES
SAYING
ONE
SHOULDN'T
DO
IT
sp
IN
THOSE
CIRCUMSTANCES
sp
WHAT
IF
THE
NAMES
ARE
sp
RIGHT
sp
WILL
THEY
GET
THE
MONEY
BACK
sp
WILL
THEY
GET
A
sp
CROSS
UNDERTAKING
{OOV}
DAMAGES
sp
AND
PRE
sp
ER
ER
AND
TO
WHAT
EXTENT
DO
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
sp
NOW
HAVE
THE
FUNDS
TO
WHAT
EXTENT
sp
WILL
IT
ACTUALLY
EFFECT
THEIR
BUSINESS
IN
THE
LIGHT
sp
OF
OF
sp
MM
sp
THE
STATE
OF
THE
sp
PREMIUM
TRUST
FUNDS
THESE
ARE
THE
SORTS
OF
CONSIDERATION
sp
ONE
WOULD
NEED
sp
TO
TAKE
INTO
sp
ACCOUNT
ER
A
NO
DOUBT
THEY
WOULD
THEY'D
sp
NEED
TO
BE
ARGUED
sp
FULLY
sp
AT
A
AT
A
LATER
sp
STAGE
sp
BUT
THE
ONLY
QUESTION
sp
HERE
sp
IS
IF
YOUR
LORDSHIP
sp
REFERS
AND
THERE'S
GOING
TO
BE
SOME
DELAY
sp
WELL
sp
ERM
I
WAS
TRYING
TO
THINK
OF
AN
sp
CASE
sp
ER
AND
THE
CASE
WHICH
WENT
TO
THE
EUROPEAN
COURT
AT
THE
sp
BEGINNING
OF
LAST
YEAR
sp
HAD
CONSEQUENCES
sp
WHICH
WERE
POTENTIALLY
sp
FAR
sp
MORE
sp
PROFOUND
sp
THAN
THIS
sp
CASE
sp
IS
IT
sp
WAS
THE
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
sp
CASE
sp
CONCERNED
THE
APPLICATION
OF
EQUAL
sp
PAY
PRINCIPLES
TO
sp
PENSIONS
sp
MM
sp
AND
ER
IF
IT
WAS
APPLIED
RETROACTIVELY
sp
THE
sp
ER
ESTIMATES
WHICH
WERE
PUT
FOR
THE
EUROPEAN
sp
COURT
YES
sp
WAS
THAT
IT
WOULD
sp
ER
HAVE
IMPLICATIONS
IN
sp
THE
UNITED
sp
KINGDOM
AMOUNTED
TO
SOME
SIXTY
sp
BILLION
sp
AND
THE
ATTORNEY
GENERAL
sp
CAME
TO
LUXEMBOURG
TO
TELL
THE
sp
COURT
ABOUT
THE
DIRE
CONSEQUENCES
sp
ER
YOUR
LORDSHIP
RAISED
sp
CONSEQUENCES
IN
THE
CONTEXT
OF
AN
ARGUMENTS
UNDER
ARTICLE
sp
FIVE
sp
YES
sp
ERM
sp
MY
LORD
IN
RELATION
TO
sp
THAT
sp
ERM
sp
AND
ER
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
IS
AN
EXAMPLE
sp
THE
EUROPEAN
COURT
sp
ITSELF
AND
sp
ONLY
THE
EUROPEAN
sp
COURT
sp
HAS
THE
POWER
TO
LIMIT
THE
DIRECT
EFFECT
OF
THE
sp
PROVISION
sp
THEY
CAN
SAY
WELL
IT
HAS
DIRECT
EFFECT
IN
THESE
CIRCUMSTANCES
sp
PROSPECTIVELY
BUT
NOT
RETROACTIVELY
sp
AND
sp
ONLY
THE
EUROPEAN
sp
COURT
sp
THAT
COURT
ALONE
sp
HAS
sp
THAT
sp
POWER
sp
ALL
OTHER
sp
COURTS
sp
NATIONAL
sp
COURTS
sp
MUST
sp
MY
LORD
THIS
IS
YOUR
DUTY
UNDER
ARTICLE
sp
FIVE
I
sp
WOULD
SUBMIT
sp
TO
ENFORCE
sp
ARTICLE
EIGHTY
FIVE
sp
AND
sp
THREE
F
sp
YEAH
ER
sp
WELL
I
FOLLOW
THAT
BUT
THE
ARGUMENT
WOULD
sp
GO
ER
sp
THE
sp
ARTICLE
MY
LORD
sp
THAT
NOBODY
WAS
sp
NOBODY
WAS
IN
THE
BUSINESS
sp
OF
NOT
sp
ENFORCING
THOSE
ERM
sp
BUT
THE
ONLY
WAY
I
sp
COULD
ERM
sp
FULFIL
THE
OBLIGATIONS
sp
ARISING
OUT
sp
OF
THE
TREATY
AND
ABSTAIN
sp
FROM
sp
MEASURES
THAT
sp
JEOPARDIZE
THE
sp
ATTAINMENTS
OF
sp
THE
OBJECTIVES
sp
OF
sp
THE
sp
TREATY
ER
WAS
sp
TO
ALLOW
THE
MONIES
TO
sp
BE
sp
COLLECTED
sp
BY
sp
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
ER
sp
LEAVING
YOU
sp
FREE
sp
TO
sp
PURSUE
YOUR
sp
COUNTERCLAIM
sp
BECAUSE
sp
THEN
IF
sp
YOU'RE
sp
RIGHT
ERM
sp
THEN
sp
YOU
WOULD
sp
ACHIEVE
EVERYTHING
sp
YOU
ARE
ENTITLED
TO
sp
ACHIEVE
sp
BY
YOUR
COUNTERCLAIM
sp
THAT
sp
WOULD
sp
ACHIEVE
sp
THE
OBJECTIVES
sp
OF
ARTICLE
sp
EIGHTY
sp
FIVE
sp
ERM
sp
WHEREAS
THE
sp
COLLECTION
sp
OF
THE
MONEY
WOULD
sp
ACHIEVE
sp
THE
OBJECTIVES
sp
OF
sp
THE
sp
DIRECTIVE
MY
LORD
sp
THAT
WAS
THE
SUGGESTION
I
PUT
sp
TO
ER
MR
sp
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
MR
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
ERM
MY
LORD
sp
MY
sp
LORD
sp
TWO
sp
ANSWERS
THEN
ADOPTED
sp
{OOV}
sp
YOU'RE
sp
WRONG
sp
THEY
ELOQUENTLY
sp
ADOPTED
THEM
AS
MY
sp
LORD
sp
ERM
sp
FIRST
OF
ALL
ARTICLE
EIGHTY
sp
FIVE
IS
DIRECT
sp
MY
sp
LORDSHIP
HAS
HEARD
sp
ALL
ABOUT
THAT
sp
TO
DO
THAT
sp
WOULD
sp
BE
RENDERING
EXCESSIVELY
DIFFICULT
THE
ENFORCEMENT
OF
THE
DIRECTLY
EFFECTIVE
PROVISION
sp
AND
YOUR
LORDSHIP
HAS
sp
NO
JURISDICTION
TO
DO
THAT
ERM
sp
BECAUSE
WE
WOULD
NOT
BE
ABLE
TO
sp
RAISE
IT
AS
A
SHIELD
sp
IN
THAT
ONE
RESPECT
sp
NOW
sp
IF
YOUR
LORDSHIP
TRIED
AND
THEN
SAID
WELL
ALRIGHT
WE
STAY
THE
COUNTERCLAIM
IS
A
SET
OFF
sp
THEN
WHAT
WOULD
YOUR
LORDSHIP
BE
INTENDING
TO
DO
ABOUT
THE
REMAINING
DEFENCES
sp
TO
SAY
WE'RE
NOT
ALLOWED
DEFEND
OUR
CLAIM
sp
ER
AT
ALL
sp
ON
THE
BASIS
OF
ARTICLE
EIGHTY
FIVE
sp
WILL
THAT
BE
THAT
YOU
SAY
REMAINING
DEF
sp
WHAT
REMAINING
sp
DEFENCES
sp
WELL
sp
THE
ER
sp
I
MEAN
sp
MY
LORD
sp
IF
YOUR
LORDSHIP
sp
I
MEAN
IF
YOU'VE
GOT
OTHER
sp
NON
{OOV}
AND
sp
WE'RE
ASSUMING
{OOV}
sp
SET
ASIDE
WE'RE
ASSUMING
sp
FOR
THE
PURPOSES
sp
OF
sp
THE
ARGUMENT
THAT
YOU
HAVEN'T
sp
I
MEAN
IT'S
sp
GOT
TA
BE
YOU'VE
GOT
OTHER
DEFENCES
ALTOGETHER
ER
sp
AND
INDEED
{OOV}
TERMS
sp
OF
WHICH
sp
I
HAVEN'T
sp
MADE
sp
MY
MIND
UP
YET
sp
BUT
sp
WITH
JUDGEMENT
AND
YOUR
sp
DUTY
OF
sp
CARE
sp
ERM
sp
MAY
sp
THEMSELVES
sp
SOLVE
THIS
sp
PARTICULAR
PROBLEM
ER
MY
LORD
YES
I
QUITE
sp
AGREE
BUT
IF
THEY
IF
THOSE
sp
EXISTS
sp
WELL
THEN
THERE'S
sp
A
sp
ERM
sp
WELL
sp
I
SUPPOSE
AGAIN
sp
MR
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
MIGHT
ACTUALLY
THEN
sp
ADOPT
EVEN
sp
FURTHER
MY
ARTICLE
sp
FIVE
SUGGESTION
sp
SAY
THAT
YOU'RE
NOT
ALLOWED
sp
TO
sp
TO
RUN
THOSE
sp
BECAUSE
sp
THEY'D
BE
CONTRARY
TO
sp
THE
DIRECTIVE
sp
BUT
sp
ER
sp
WE'D
HAVE
TO
WAIT
AND
SEE
sp
THAT
WOULD
BE
TO
sp
COMPLETELY
sp
UNDERMINE
THE
EFFECT
OF
ARTICLE
EIGHTY
sp
FIVE
WE
SIMPLY
WOULDN'T
BE
ABLE
TO
sp
RAISE
OUR
SHIELD
AT
ALL
sp
WE
WOULD
HAVE
A
COUNTERCLAIM
BUT
AT
WHICH
sp
POINT
sp
SINCE
WE
HAD
sp
NO
sp
OF
WHAT
{OOV}
ERM
FOR
sp
EXAMPLE
AS
sp
ONE
OF
IT'S
sp
PRINCIPAL
DEFENCES
sp
DEFENCES
sp
ERM
sp
WE
WOULD
SAY
sp
WE'VE
sp
MADE
THE
PLAINTIFFS
CASE
sp
VERY
MUCH
EASIER
THEY'VE
NOW
GOT
sp
ALL
OUR
MONEY
WE'RE
BANKRUPT
WE
CAN'T
PURSUE
OUR
CLAIM
BECAUSE
WE'VE
GOT
NO
MONEY
TO
PURSUE
IT
sp
WITH
sp
IN
ARTICLE
EIGHTY
FIVE
WOULD
OF
BEEN
COMPLETELY
UNDERMINED
sp
BECAUSE
WE
WOULD
sp
NOT
OF
HAD
A
REALISTIC
OPPORTUNITY
sp
TO
sp
RAISE
ARTICLE
EIGHTY
FIVE
AS
A
DEFENCE
sp
AND
YOUR
LORDSHIP
TO
DO
THAT
WOULD
OF
HAD
TO
sp
NOT
ONLY
SET
ASIDE
THE
COUNTERCLAIM
AS
A
SET
sp
OFF
sp
BUT
ALSO
TO
SET
ASIDE
THE
ENTIRE
EIGHTY
FIVE
sp
DEFENCE
TO
STAYED
IT
OR
sp
TO
HAVE
sp
SET
IT
ASIDE
BUT
OF
COURSE
WE'RE
ASSUMING
FOR
THE
PURPOSES
sp
OF
sp
THE
ARGUMENT
sp
THAT
ER
THAT
sp
ERM
YOUR
THAT
IS
A
MATTER
OF
ENG
ENGLISH
sp
LAW
sp
THE
MATTERS
OF
WHICH
YOU
sp
MAKE
sp
COMPLAINT
ARE
sp
A
DEFENCE
OR
sp
SET
OFF
sp
MY
LORD
sp
WE
THERE
IS
ER
BUT
IF
THERE'RE
sp
NOT
sp
MY
sp
LORD
WE'VE
ASSUMED
sp
AS
A
MATTER
OF
ENGLISH
LAW
THAT
I
THINK
THE
COUNTERCLAIM
sp
CAN
ARISE
AS
A
SET
OFF
sp
BUT
THE
OTHER
MATTERS
ARE
A
sp
MATTER
sp
OF
COMMUNITY
sp
LAW
sp
MM
sp
NOT
ENGLISH
sp
LAW
sp
YES
sp
MY
LORD
ER
ER
IN
IN
MY
SUBMISSION
THE
sp
THE
THE
HIGHEST
REALLY
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
sp
COULD
PUT
THEIR
CASE
sp
IS
THAT
IF
THE
MATTER
WERE
REFERRED
sp
YOUR
LORDSHIP
SIMPLY
DIDN'T
STAY
PROCEEDINGS
OR
PERMITTED
THEM
sp
FOR
EXAMPLE
TO
APPLY
sp
FOR
INTERIM
PAYMENT
sp
OR
PERMITTED
THEM
TO
sp
TAKE
SOME
sp
PROCEDURAL
STEPS
TO
PURSUE
THEIR
ACTION
sp
SO
THAT
THEY
WEREN'T
sp
UNDULY
DELAYED
SHOULD
THEY
SUCCEED
AT
THE
END
OF
sp
THE
DAY
sp
AND
THAT
WOULD
BE
A
MAJOR
CONCESSION
sp
BECAUSE
IT
sp
WOULD
RUN
AGAINST
A
NORMAL
RULE
COS
ON
A
REFERENCE
sp
THE
ENTIRE
PROCEEDINGS
ARE
STAYED
sp
THAT'S
NOT
A
CASE
JUST
SAYING
EVEN
IF
THAT
IS
DONE
sp
ER
sp
THAT
ANYBODY
IS
SAYING
THAT
sp
PARTICULAR
MEASURE
IS
OR
IS
sp
GOOD
sp
IS
NOT
sp
GOOD
OR
sp
MAY
NOT
BE
FORCED
IN
THE
INTERIM
MM
sp
BECAUSE
sp
VALIDITY
OF
THE
SECTION
FOURTEEN
IS
THE
QUESTION
FOR
ULTIMATE
TRIAL
WE'RE
NOT
SEEKING
INTERIM
RELIEF
AGAINST
THAT
WE
HAVEN'T
DONE
THAT
sp
{CG}
sp
MY
LORD
sp
THAT
sp
IN
OUR
SUBMISSION
IS
THE
HIGHEST
sp
AND
THE
BEST
sp
THAT
THEY
COULD
sp
ACHIEVE
sp
ERM
sp
PROPERLY
sp
ERM
WHICH
WAS
TO
AVOID
A
STAY
sp
ON
A
REFERENCE
AND
THEY
COULD
THEN
CONTINUE
WITH
THE
PROCEEDINGS
RATHER
sp
THAN
BE
sp
PUT
OFF
sp
FOR
A
sp
A
VERY
YOU
KNOW
WHAT
MAYBE
A
YEAR
AND
A
HALF
sp
ER
sp
IF
THE
COURT
sp
DEALT
WITH
IT
sp
IN
THE
NORMAL
WAY
OR
PERHAPS
sp
EVEN
A
sp
LITTLE
sp
BIT
sp
LONGER
ERM
sp
BUT
TO
ACTUALLY
sp
GO
TO
sp
FURTHER
THAN
sp
THAT
sp
AND
TO
sp
DENY
THE
DEFENDANT
THE
RIGHT
sp
TO
PUT
UP
A
A
sp
PROPER
E
E
C
DEFENCE
sp
MY
LORD
IN
MY
SUBMISSION
sp
WOULD
BE
sp
ERM
sp
WITHOUT
THE
JURISDICTION
OF
THE
sp
COURT
sp
YES
sp
MY
LORD
sp
ERM
JUST
TO
SWEEP
UP
ONE
OR
TWO
OF
THE
OTHER
sp
VERY
BRIEFLY
THE
POINTS
MY
LEARNED
FRIEND
HAS
JUST
sp
RAISED
sp
ERM
sp
I
I
THINK
IT
FOLLOWS
THAT
OUR
PROVISIONAL
sp
POSITION
sp
AT
THE
MOMENT
IS
sp
THAT
sp
WE
THINK
THAT
REFERENCE
sp
IS
PROBABLY
MORE
SATISFACTORY
THAN
sp
SIMPLY
GOING
TO
THE
sp
COMMISSION
sp
WHAT
WENT
IF
sp
YOUR
LORDSHIP
WENT
TO
THE
COMMISSION
AND
THEN
FOUND
THAT
THEY
WERE
UNSATISFACTORY
OR
DIDN'T
sp
REALLY
TAKE
MATTERS
FURTHER
sp
FOR
ONE
OF
THE
REASONS
IT
MIGHT
VERY
WELL
sp
NOT
IS
sp
BECAUSE
THE
ORIGINAL
COMPLAINT
PUT
TO
THE
sp
COMMISSION
WAS
NOT
FRAMED
IN
THE
SAME
WAY
AS
THE
DEFENCE
AND
sp
COUNTERCLAIM
sp
ARE
sp
NOW
sp
FRAMED
sp
ER
THERE'S
BEEN
A
VERY
CONSIDERABLE
AMOUNT
OF
REFINEMENT
sp
BOTH
PARTIES
WOULD
NO
DOUBT
WISH
TO
PUT
SUBMISSIONS
INTO
THE
COMMISSION
AS
TO
sp
HOW
sp
THE
ANSWER
SHOULD
BE
sp
PUT
OR
TO
PROVIDE
INFORMATION
SO
THE
COMMISSION
CAN
ANSWER
THEM
sp
AND
SO
ON
AND
SO
FORTH
sp
AND
IT
MAY
NOT
BE
ANY
sp
QUICKER
DOING
IT
THAT
sp
WAY
MM
THAN
sp
GOING
TO
THE
COURT
sp
ERM
sp
FOR
sp
{OOV}
THE
ONLY
sp
ATTRACTION
OF
THAT
IS
sp
WOULD
BE
IF
YOU
COULD
BOTH
BE
ABLE
TO
TELL
ME
THAT
IF
sp
I
sp
ERM
sp
WROTE
THEM
A
LETTER
OR
sp
YOU
WROTE
sp
THEM
sp
A
LETTER
sp
ON
MY
sp
BEHALF
ERM
AND
THEY
SAY
OF
YES
sp
THEY
ARE
GOING
TO
DEAL
sp
WITH
sp
THIS
{OOV}
ERM
sp
NEXT
sp
FRIDAY
OR
sp
SOMETHING
sp
IT
sp
WOULD
sp
BE
QUITE
GOOD
IDEA
TO
WAIT
TILL
NEXT
sp
FRIDAY
BUT
sp
THE
THE
CHANCES
OF
THAT
SEEM
TO
BE
TOTALLY
REMOTE
MY
sp
LORD
I
WOULD
THINK
THAT
sp
NOW
sp
PROBABLY
NOT
EVEN
THAT
HIGH
APART
sp
FROM
ANYTHING
ELSE
sp
ER
ER
sp
ER
sp
YOUR
COMPLAINT
HAS
sp
BEEN
sp
RATHER
OVERTAKEN
sp
BY
EVENTS
AND
AND
sp
BOTH
sp
PARTIES
sp
WOULD
NO
DOUBT
WISH
sp
TO
TO
sp
OR
sp
MAY
WELL
sp
WISH
sp
TO
TAKE
FURTHER
sp
ER
BUT
I
THINK
YOU'LL
BOTH
AGREE
THAT
sp
PROSPECTS
sp
OF
sp
ER
LET
SAY
GETTING
sp
ANY
sp
MEANINGFUL
sp
ANSWER
OUT
OF
THE
sp
COMMISSION
sp
BY
sp
CHRISTMAS
sp
ARE
REMOTE
sp
WELL
MY
sp
LORD
THE
POSITION
sp
AS
ER
sp
YOUR
LORDSHIP
IS
AWARE
sp
FROM
THE
sp
LETTER
EXHIBITED
TO
MRS
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
AFFIDAVIT
IS
sp
THE
COMMISSION
sp
WERE
INFORMED
sp
IN
NEUTRAL
sp
TERMS
sp
MM
sp
ABOUT
sp
THIS
sp
HEARING
sp
YES
THEY'VE
HAD
A
COPY
OF
sp
THE
sp
ORDER
sp
WE
HAVE
HEARD
sp
NO
sp
REPLY
sp
FROM
THEM
sp
SO
NO
sp
MY
sp
LORD
sp
VERY
BRIEFLY
JUST
SWEEPING
UP
ONE
OR
TWO
sp
POINTS
sp
MY
sp
LORD
I
DON'T
THINK
I
NEED
TO
{OOV}
sp
BECAUSE
AS
I
SAY
WE'RE
NOT
CHALLENGING
THE
LAW
sp
ERM
sp
I
DON'T
THINK
THAT'S
THE
RIGHT
CONTEXT
IN
WHICH
THESE
sp
THESE
sp
PROBLEM
ARISE
YES
sp
ER
MY
sp
LORD
SIMPLY
DIRECTIVES
UNDER
ONE
ART
ARTICLE
ONE
sp
EIGHT
sp
NINE
sp
ERM
sp
I
CAN
sp
VERY
SIMPLY
SAY
IN
RELATION
TO
sp
THE
LLOYDS
ACT
AND
TO
THE
BYE
LAWS
THEY
WERE
ADOPTED
TEN
YEARS
sp
AFTER
THE
DIRECTIVE
sp
THERE
CAN'T
THEREFORE
BE
AN
IMPLEMENTATION
sp
THEY
sp
THEY
sp
THE
sp
THE
sp
IMPLEMENTATION
IS
FULLY
SET
OUT
IN
THE
INSURANCE
COMPANIES
ACT
NINETEEN
EIGHTY
TWO
sp
AND
IT
QUITE
CLEAR
NOW
{OOV}
BECAUSE
THE
SECRETARY
OF
S
WELL
I'M
NOT
SURE
I'M
sp
NOT
sp
SURE
THEY
sp
CAN'T
sp
{OOV}
IMPLEMENTATION
I
MEAN
WE'RE
sp
WE'RE
SUPPOSED
sp
TO
ERM
sp
IMPLEMENT
sp
ERM
sp
EQUAL
PENSION
RIGHTS
FOR
MEN
AND
WOMEN
MM
sp
WE'RE
NOT
ACTUALLY
GOING
TO
sp
FINISH
sp
DOING
THAT
sp
UNTIL
TWENTY
sp
TWENTY
WHICH
sp
WILL
sp
BE
sp
ER
sp
NEARLY
sp
FORTY
YEARS
ON
REALLY
sp
LOOK
sp
LOOK
sp
MAY
I
sp
PUT
IT
THIS
sp
WAY
sp
WE'RE
IN
THE
DIRECTIVE
sp
OF
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
BEING
ABLE
TO
sp
POINT
TO
SOMETHING
WHICH
sp
PERMITS
THE
SECRETARY
OF
STATE
TO
sp
DELEGATE
THE
FUNCTION
sp
THAT
sp
WHAT'S
IT
FOR
WELL
I
DO
THINK
I
HAVE
I
HAVE
sp
THOSE
POINTS
sp
ERM
I
DON'T
WANT
TO
STOP
sp
YOU
sp
MR
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
ER
AND
I
DO
REPEAT
I'M
GOING
TO
sp
I'M
GOING
TO
sp
RULE
sp
ON
sp
THESE
MATTERS
AND
BOTH
sp
PARTIES
HAVE
sp
ER
ERM
sp
WILL
HAVE
sp
CERTAINLY
sp
HAVE
sp
FULL
sp
LIBERTY
sp
TO
sp
COME
BACK
AND
sp
AND
sp
DEAL
WITH
sp
THEM
I
JUST
WANTED
sp
TO
sp
KNOW
sp
IN
OUTLINE
sp
THE
sp
PRESENT
{OOV}
sp
PARTIES
sp
ER
sp
TO
THE
FUTURE
OF
THESE
PROCEEDINGS
ER
ER
sp
THE
ONE
sp
THING
THAT
HAS
COME
sp
CLEAR
THROUGH
sp
ER
sp
YOUR
sp
SUBMISSION
sp
MR
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
IS
sp
THAT
sp
YOU'RE
sp
NOT
sp
ER
sp
IN
sp
ANY
WAY
ENAMOURED
OF
THE
IDEA
THAT
THERE
sp
SHOULD
sp
BE
sp
SOME
sp
SCHEME
sp
WHEREBY
sp
YOUR
sp
CLIENTS
ERM
sp
PAY
THEIR
CENTRAL
sp
FUND
sp
AND
DEMANDS
AND
sp
ER
sp
ER
AND
sp
ERM
sp
MAINTAIN
THEIR
COUNTERCLAIM
sp
HERE
AFTER
sp
MY
sp
LORD
INDEED
I
HOPE
THAT
HAS
COME
sp
ACROSS
VERY
CLEARLY
YES
WELL
I'D
sp
BE
RATHER
sp
SURPRISED
IF
sp
YOU
sp
ACCEDED
sp
TO
sp
THE
IDEA
sp
ERM
sp
YEAH
sp
CAN
MR
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
HELP
sp
US
sp
ON
THAT
THIS
POSITION
MY
LORD
I
CAN
sp
I'M
SITTING
sp
EARLY
TOMORROW
BECAUSE
A
sp
WITNESS
IS
sp
BEING
CROSS
EXAMINED
BY
MR
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
sp
GOT
TO
GO
OFF
sp
TO
{OOV}
SO
sp
TOMORROW
sp
HE
SIMPLY
COULD
NOT
ER
HE
sp
SI
sp
SIMPLY
COULD
NOT
sp
BE
RELEASED
sp
BUT
sp
ER
WITH
YOUR
sp
CLERK
ER
WE'VE
sp
BEEN
ABLE
TO
SPEAK
sp
TO
MR
sp
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
MM
WE'VE
BEEN
SLIGHTLY
sp
MORE
AMENABLE
BUT
{OOV}
INVITE
sp
TO
YOUR
sp
CLUB
{OOV}
TEMERITY
TO
ASK
YOUR
LORDSHIP
sp
RATHER
sp
ME
BUT
AS
I'M
ON
MY
sp
FEET
sp
ER
ASK
YOUR
LORDSHIP
WHETHER
YOU
COULD
SIT
sp
AT
ALL
EARLY
sp
ON
sp
FRIDAY
AS
TO
sp
HELP
sp
MR
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
ER
I
I
sp
WAS
sp
LITTLE
CONCERNED
TO
sp
HEAR
MR
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
SAY
THAT
sp
HE
WAS
GOING
TO
WAIT
FOR
sp
MR
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
HE
sp
HAD
RESPONDED
sp
BECAUSE
THAT
WOULD
OF
sp
COURSE
sp
THEN
EXTEND
sp
MORE
INTO
sp
FRIDAY
IT
sp
MAY
BE
MORE
SENSIBLE
sp
IF
MR
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
COULD
HAVE
sp
WELL
YOU
sp
WOULD
sp
{OOV}
sp
IF
I
THINK
IT'S
UNSATISFACTORY
sp
ER
sp
TO
GET
sp
TO
ASK
MR
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
TO
sp
DEAL
WITH
MR
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
YES
sp
MY
LORD
sp
AND
THEN
sp
MR
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
I
THINK
NECESSARILY
sp
MAY
sp
BE
sp
SAYING
SOMETHING
sp
THE
SAME
sp
AS
OR
sp
ALONG
THE
SAME
LINES
sp
AS
MR
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
AND
THEN
sp
MR
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
HAVE
ER
sp
YET
ANOTHER
sp
GO
I
THINK
sp
IT
sp
THAT'S
IN
sp
WHICH
CASE
I'M
sp
NOT
sp
VERY
SATISFACTORY
BECAUSE
ER
sp
IT
MEANS
THAT
MR
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
sp
HAS
sp
GOT
TO
sp
REASSEMBLE
sp
HIS
sp
FINAL
sp
REMARKS
ERM
sp
TWICE
sp
MY
LORD
IN
sp
WHICH
CASE
I
THINK
sp
EV
EVEN
WITH
MR
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
PUTTING
IN
sp
HIS
sp
NOTICE
sp
{OOV}
WILL
sp
IT'S
sp
BOUND
sp
TO
TAKE
AN
sp
HOUR
YES
ERM
sp
MAY
I
sp
SUGGEST
sp
MR
sp
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
sp
IF
sp
YOUR
LORDSHIP
sp
WOULD
sp
CARE
TO
SIT
AT
sp
TEN
sp
O'CLOCK
AND
sp
THEN
{OOV}
THINK
sp
HE'LL
sp
GET
sp
{OOV}
sp
AT
sp
ELEVEN
sp
FIFTEEN
sp
BUT
sp
REALLY
IN
sp
{OOV}
ERM
sp
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
UNDER
VERY
sp
GREAT
sp
STRESS
sp
HE'S
sp
ALREADY
sp
LOST
sp
ONE
JUDGE
sp
BECAUSE
sp
THIS
sp
{OOV}
sp
WELL
I
THINK
sp
ERM
sp
THE
SHORT
ANSWER
sp
IS
sp
THAT
sp
I
sp
CAN'T
sp
ERM
ERM
sp
PROVIDE
sp
THE
PARTIES
sp
WITH
ANY
TIME
ON
sp
FRIDAY
sp
ER
sp
THE
CASE
THIS
CASE
HAS
ALREADY
sp
SOME
WHAT
OVER
sp
RUN
IT'S
ESTIMATE
sp
WHICH
HAS
sp
PUT
sp
PRESSURE
sp
ON
sp
THE
sp
COMMERCIAL
JUDGE
AS
IT
sp
IS
sp
THERE'S
GON
NA
BE
EVEN
MORE
PRESSURE
ON
sp
FRIDAY
sp
ERM
sp
I'M
sp
AFRAID
TO
SAY
THE
THAT
sp
THE
sp
COMPLEXITIES
OF
THIS
sp
CASE
AS
SUCH
THAT
I
sp
CAN
NOT
ERM
sp
BEGIN
TO
THINK
sp
THAT
sp
EVEN
sp
IF
sp
WE
STARTED
sp
AT
sp
TEN
sp
WE
WOULD
sp
ERM
sp
NECESSARILY
sp
FINISH
sp
WITHIN
sp
THE
HOUR
sp
I
HAVE
sp
DIFFICULTIES
sp
STARTING
sp
AT
TEN
sp
O'CLOCK
ANYWAY
sp
I
THINK
WE'LL
SIMPLY
sp
HAVE
sp
TO
ERM
sp
PUT
sp
THE
sp
MATTER
sp
OFF
sp
OFF
sp
UNTIL
sp
MONDAY
sp
MORNING
sp
I
sp
MR
sp
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
sp
CAN'T
sp
ATTEND
sp
I
REALLY
DON'T
sp
THINK
sp
THAT
I
CAN
sp
ERM
PUT
IT
OFF
sp
ER
sp
ANY
sp
LONGER
sp
THAN
sp
THAT
ER
MY
sp
LORD
sp
HE'LL
OBVIOUSLY
HAVE
sp
TO
MAKE
sp
ENQUIRIES
AS
TO
sp
WHETHER
sp
HE
sp
CAN
sp
ASK
HIS
sp
NEXT
sp
CASE
TO
sp
TO
sp
START
{OOV}
sp
MM
sp
ERM
sp
BECAUSE
I'VE
GOT
sp
TO
PROVIDE
SOME
sp
SOME
sp
ANSWER
sp
BEFORE
sp
CHRISTMAS
EVEN
IF
IT
sp
EVEN
IF
sp
THE
ANSWER
IS
THAT
I
sp
CAN'T
sp
PROVIDE
AN
sp
ANSWER
YES
sp
ERM
sp
ER
AND
I'M
HAVE
sp
TO
sp
TAKE
SOME
sp
TIME
OVER
sp
THIS
sp
SO
I
THINK
ERM
IN
sp
THE
sp
CIRCUMSTANCES
THE
BETTER
sp
THING
sp
TO
sp
DO
WOULD
BE
TO
ADJOURN
sp
THIS
sp
CASE
TILL
sp
MONDAY
sp
MORNING
AND
HOPE
THAT
sp
MR
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
CAN
sp
SO
ARRANGE
sp
HIS
AFFAIRS
sp
TO
ADDRESS
sp
ME
AT
HALF
PAST
TEN
sp
ON
sp
THAT
DAY
ER
sp
WITH
sp
MR
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
AND
WITH
ERM
sp
WHATEVER
RIGHTS
HE
sp
HAS
TO
sp
ERM
sp
DEAL
WITH
sp
MATTERS
{OOV}
OF
THIS
sp
COME
sp
UP
A
sp
FRESH
sp
IN
sp
REPLY
AND
sp
TO
sp
FINISH
OFF
sp
I'M
sp
GON
NA
sp
LEAVE
IT
sp
LIKE
THAT
A
sp
VERY
sp
MUCH
sp
AND
AS
I
SAY
AS
FAR
AS
sp
FAR
AS
TOMORROW'S
sp
CONCERNED
sp
THAT'S
ER
NOT
A
sp
DIFFICULTY
sp
WITH
sp
ERM
EITHER
MR
{GAP_ANONYMIZATION_NAME}
INFORMS
ME
WHICH
sp
IS
UNLIKELY
sp
OR
I
CAN
AT
sp
LEAST
GET
A
sp
MAKE
A
START
sp
ER
ON
sp
THE
OTHER
ASPECTS
sp
OF
THE
sp
JUDGEMENT
sp
ALRIGHT
sp
THEN
sp
HALF
PAST
sp
TEN
ON
MONDAY
sp
MORNING
COURT
sp
RISE
sp