HM Barlow
First
Plaintiff
Sworn February 1994
1984 S. No. 1675
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
B E T W E E N :
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY ADVANCED ORGANIZATION
SAINT HILL EUROPE AND AFRICA
Plaintiff
-and-
(1) ROBIN SCOTT
(2) RON LAWLEY
(3) MORAG BELLMAINE
(4) STEVEN BISBEY
Defendants
AFFIDAVIT OF
HELEN MARGARET BARLOW
I, HELEN MARGARET BARLOW, Solicitor's clerk with the firm of
Allen, Ticehurst & Bird of 59-63 Railway Approach, East
Grinstead, West Sussex RH19 1BT MAKE OATH and say as follows:
1. I am a solicitor's clerk employed by the firm of Allen,
Ticehurst & Bird which firm has, since 26th November 1993,
had the conduct of these proceedings on behalf of the
Plaintiff in place of its former solicitors.
2. I am authorized to make this Affidavit on behalf of the
Plaintiff in reply to:-
2
a. the Affidavit of Ron Lawley sworn on behalf of the
First, Second and third Defendants on the 12th July
1993; and
b. the Seventh Affidavit of Ron Lawley sworn on 4th
January 1994 on his own behalf as Second Defendant;
and
c. the Affidavit of Robin Edwin Bates won on 13th
January 1994 on behalf of the Third and Fourth Defendants;
each of these Affidavits being in support of two
applications, one by the First and Second Defendant, and
the other by the Third and Fourth Defendants, for Orders
that the Plaintiff do make and file an Affidavit pursuant
to Order 24 rule 7 RSC and, in the case of the Second
Defendant's Seventh Affidavit, in support of an application
by the First and Second Defendants for leave to amend their
Defence.
3. All facts and matters deposed to by me herein are within my
own knowledge save where otherwise appears. Where I depose
to information obtained otherwise than from my own
knowledge, I believe that information to be true. In
making this Affidavit I have made enquiries of the
Plaintiff and as appears below also of the United States
attorneys of the Church of Scientology International in
3
relation to some of the allegations raised in the
Defendant's affidavit evidence.
4. At the outset I should inform this Honorable Court that
while the Summons for the above mentioned Order was issued
by the Second Defendant's Solicitors on 12th November 1993,
it was not until 11th January 1994 that their Summons (with
a return date of 21st January 1994), and the Supplementary
Affidavit of the Second Defendant in support thereof, were
served ont his firm on behalf of the Plaintiff (by the
Second Defendant through the post). Furthermore, the First
and Third Defendants' Solicitors issued their Summons on
14th January 1994 (again with a return date of 21st January
1994) but again it and the Affidavit of Robin Edwin Bates
in support thereof were not served on the Plaintiff until
18th January 1994 although it was open to them to serve
the same by facsimile on 14th January. While this is within
the time required by Order 32 rule 3, it is well
established that applicants who obtain fixed dates for
hearings should notify the other parties forthwith and
serve the Summons and supporting affidavits without delay.
On 20th January 1994 I was telephoned by Mr. Harbinson of
Elborne Mitchell (Solicitors for the Second Defendant) who
agreed that the hearing of the summonses fixed for the next
day be adjourned to be heard before the Judge in charge of
the lists on a date to be fixed.
4
I would also point out to this Honourable Court that the
Second Defendant in his two Affidavits has included a
number of irrelevant, bald and offensive allegations of a
serious nature which are not accepted by the Plaintiff.
While these statements are irrelevant and I would
ordinarily not even respond to them, they will receive
brief address herein lest this Honourable Court grant them
any credence in its consideration of these matters.
6. Turning now to the Affidavit of the Second Defendant sworn
on 12th July 1993, I comment thereon as follows (references
to paragraph numbers are to the numbered paragraphs of the
said Affidavit):
7. I first make the general comment that the Second
Defendant is clearly trying to fog the issues and avoid the
true background to this action. The Defendants were
involved in the theft and/or unlawful acquisition of
advanced materials and procedures written by L Ron Hubbard,
founder of the Scientology religion, and licensed for use
by the Plaintiff, namely OT 5 or "NOTs" (hereinafter
referred to as "the NOTs materials"). I should explain at
this point that in the Scientology religion progression
towards full spiritual awareness is achieved through
completing various stages of counselling or "auditing". (A
full description of auditing can be found at p. 156 of the
book "What is Scientology?" a copy of which is now produced
and shown to me marked "HMB 1".) Those various stages are
5
often referred to by Scientologists as "the Bridge", that
is, a bridge to total freedom. Detailed information about
"the Bridge" is found at p. 171 of Exhibit HMB 1, to which
I would refer this Honourable Court. L Ron Hubbard's
written and spoken materials relating to the lower stages
of the Bridge are freely published and available to all.
However, the materials relating to the upper levels of the
Bridge are kept confidential by the Church. The reason for
this is that understanding of and ability to apply these
materials are dependent upon having fully attained the
earlier states of awareness and abilities attainable from
auditing on the lower levels of the Bridge. Accordingly
these materials are only released to those who have
honestly attained all earlier states. The first three
Defendants have admitted that they obtained the NOTs
materials by subterfuge, travelling to the Plaintiff's
premises in Denmark disguised as senior executives in
uniforms of the Sea Organisation (a religious order), which
had been provided to the thieves by another conspirator.
There is now produced and shown to me marked "HMB 2"
excerpts of a statement by one Nancy Carter relating to
these matters. The First Defendant was subsequently
arrested, tried and convicted for the theft in Copenhagen,
Denmark. There is now produced and shown to me marked "HMB
3" a true copy of a certified trnnslntion of that
conviction.
6
In paragraph 2 the Second Defendant asserts that (1) L Ron
Hubbard completely controlled all of the Scientology
organisations throughout the world; and (2) that it follows
that the 200 or more Churches or companion are really just
one large organisation. No real evidence is adduced by the
Second Defendant in support of these statements. The
number of Churches and companies is incorrect. In 1992 the
Churches, Missions, and related social reform organisations
which follow the doctrines of Scientology numbered over
1,000. I refer this Honorable Court to p. 456 of Exhibit
HMB 1, a copy demographic chart showing the number of
Churches, Missions and so on at various points in time.
Furthermore, these organisations are not "one large
organisation". It is true to say that Churches of
Scientology are arranged in a hierarchial ecclesiastical
struicture, but the various Churches within that
ecclesiastical hierarchy consist of separate non-profit
religious corporations that are governed by their own
independent boards of directors and officers, each
corporation being fully responsible for its own activities.
There is now produced and shown to me marked "HMB 4" a copy
of a booklet "Description of the Scientology Religion",
which is distributed by the United States Internal Revenue
Service (the "IRS") in response to questions asked about
the Church; information on the various Churches and other
corporations can be found on pages 4-7 of this booklet, to
which I would refer this Honorable Court. I verily
believe that this booklet was prepared in connection with
7
an exhaustive review of the United States Churches of
Scientology conducted by the IRS. This review was done in
the process of recognising the tax-exempt status of those
Churches. The result of this review was that on 1st
October 1993 letters of recognition were issued by the IRS
resulting in the tax exemption of 153 Scientology Churches
and related social reform entities. These exemptions are
not prospective; they contain no beginning date and
therefore are retroactive to the earliest incorporation of
each entity. There is now produced and shown to me marked
"HMB 5" copies of the individual exemption letter and group
exemption letter issued to Church of Scientology
International, the mother Church of the Scientology
religion. In granting these exemptions, the IRS did an
exhaustive review over a two year period of over 12 linear
feet of records covering many years. The IRS required
extensive responses to numerous detailed questions, ranging
from questions regarding Church activities and financial
affairs to civil litigation and various accusations by
Church detractors. All of the detailed questions asked by
the IRS were answered. Their extensive queries into the
financial structures of the Churches of Scientology
hierarchy, the services they deliver, the organisation of
each Church, the receipt and disbursement of donations, and
myriad other detailed inquiries were fully satisfied in the
process. The IRS did not conduct a milk-and-water enquiry
- its questions were searching, it sought explanations of
the most inflammatory accusations and "information" which
8
it could find regarding Scientology and its Churches.
After receiving the responses, the IRS were satisfied that
the Churches were organised and operated exclusively for
charitable and religious purposes and therefore granted
them tax exemption. There is now produced and shown to me
marked "HMB 6" a true copy of a declaration of Thomas L
Spring, filed in consolidated cases of Religious Technology
Center et al v. Scott et al No. CV 85-711 AWT (Bx) and
Religious Technology Center et al v. Wollersheim et al No.
CV 85-7197 AWT (bx) in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California, which discusses these
facts, arises out of the same theft of the NOTs materials,
and in which the Defendants herein are also named as
defendants. The inclusion of the description of the
corporate structure and functions of various Scientology
corporations in the booklet which the IRS is sending to all
those making enquiry thereon is an obvious endorsement of
the fact that the IRS's investigation of the underlying
facts proved nothing to the contrary. Furthermore, during
the course of its enquiries, the IRS became acquainted with
the source of, and the truth about, the considerable amount
of false information concerning Scientology which had been
disseminated in various parts of the world; in order to
correct matters the IRS has sent a copy of the booklet,
together with official covering letters, to all those
countries to which such false information had been passed.
More detailed information on the ecclesiastical hierarchy
9
of the Church of Scientology can be found in Chapter 21 of
Exhibit HMB 1 at pp. 349-359.
9. The Second Defendant referes to Church of Spiritual
Technology ("CST"). A short description of CST is found at
page 8 of the booklet at Exhibit HMB 4. The Plaintiff is
not aware of what documents CST may or may not have, and in
any event any such documents are not in the Plaintiff's
possession, custody or power. Furthermore, as can be seen
from Exhibit HMB 4 at page 8, CST, while a Church of
Scientology, is not part of the Scientology hierarchy.
Like other Churches of Scientology, it is a separate
corporate entity. Unlike the majority of those churches,
however, it is not involved in the delivery of religious
services to the public, but has the exclusive function of
acting as an archives for the preservation of the many
religious writings and taped lectures of L. Ron Hubbard.
10.
The
Second Defendant refers in paragraph 2 to an Affidavit
of one Gerald Armstrong, sworn over 11 years ago (not sworn
in these proceedings). I am informed by the Plaintiff and
verily believe that Gerald Armstrong ("Armstrong") is an
individual involved in litigation with Church of
Scientology International and Church of Scientology of
California. Armstrong is a long-time attacker of the
Scientology religion, who, since the time of execution of
the Affidavit referred to by the Second Defendant,
testified in another case (Julie Christofferson-Titchbourne
10
v. Church of Scientology Mission of Davis et al Circuit
Court of the State of Oregon, Multnomah County, No. A7704-
05184. His testimony in this case directly contradicts the
proposition on which the Second Defendant relies in
support
of his assertion that L Ron Hubbard was a managing agent of
the Plaintiff. The following excerpt from a video tape
transcript, admitted into evidence in the above-referenced
case, shows that Armstrong had no knowledge of who was
running the Church or who its managing agent was. In the
transcript, "G" is Armstrong, "M" is Mike Rinder, a Church
executive in Los Angeles.
"G: It can be done during the chaos of whatever RTC, ASI's
got going. Who runs the organisation right now?
M: Which organisation?
G: All of it. Who runs it?
M: Well, it gets run through CMO Int.
G: And who are those people?
M: Well, you know, probably the same guys as when you
were around."
I am informed by the Church of Scientology International's
United States attorneys and verily believe that the
videotape from which this transcript was made is a
recording of a meeting set up by Armstrong after his sudden
departure from the staff of Church of Scientology of
California in late 1981. Armstrong had been in charge of
a large quantity of personal and private documents
belonging to L. Ron Hubbard. Part of Armstrong's duties
included research to support the work of an author who had
been retained to write a biography of Mr. Hubbard. After
11
Armstrong's departure, in the summer of 1982, the Church
received evidence that Armstrong had stolen thousands of
documents from those archives when he left the Church.
Armstrong refused the demands of the Church's Counsel that
he return the documents. Litigation against Armstrong was
thereafter filed to recover the documents, while Armstrong
pursued a plan to infiltrate and take over the Church. The
meeting recorded in the videotape excerpted above was part
of Armstrong's conspiracy. Armstrong had contacted Church
staff members who, while pretending to work with Armstrong,
actually remained loyal to the Church. They received
permission from the Los Angeles Police Department to tape
this meeting. The videotape further shows that Armstrong
intended to (1) recruit additional persons to create "as
much shit for the organisation as possible"; (2) foster
this plan by creating sham lawsuits against the Church; (3)
seed the Church's files with forged and " incriminating"
documents which would then be seized in a raid by the IRS
as part of its investigations. He claimed the ability to
create documents with relative ease because "he did it for
a living"; (4) take control of the Church after such a
raid; and (5) lie under oath to prevent discovery and to
protect his co-conspirators, as evidenced by his statements
that "we don't have to prove a goddam thing. We don't have
to prove shit; we just have to allege it" and that if he is
deposed "no-one will ever get any names, any
communications, any times, any dates or
anything out
of me,
that's just the way it is." There is now produced and
12
shown to me marked "HMB 7" a copy of the pertinent extracts
from that tape transcript. More recently Armstrong has
been quoted in the press, expressing his opposition to the
use of currency as the basis of the economy, as the self-
proclaimed founder of the "Organisation of United
Renunciants". There is now produced and shown to me marked
"HMB 8" a copy of a newspaper article containing
information on Mr Armstrong's latest activities, including
a nude photograph of Mr Armstrong.
11. I am informed by the Plaintiff and verily believe that L
Ron Hubbard ran the early Dianetics and Scientology
organisations until 1966, when he retired from running them
on a day to day basis and turned this function over to
Scientology Church executives; and that he continued to
take an interest in the Church's expansion and advised on
administrative matters when specifically asked for advice
but he mainly spent his time researching the upper levels
of Scientology and codifying the technology. I refer this
Honourable Court to pp. 633-645 of Exhibit HMB 1 which
givens information relating to that period of L. Ron
Hubbard's life. The Second Defendant's claims that Mr
Hubbard controlled the Church of Scientology and received
inurement of millions of dollars of funds from the Church
was exposed as false by the IRS. If such allegations had
not been proven false in the IRS's extensive and exhaustive
enquiry which went back a number of years before L Ron
Hubbard's death, the IRS would never have granted exemption
13
to those Churches. I would also refer this Honourable
Court to the declaration of Thomas L Spring which appears
at Exhibit HMB 6 hereto.
12. The Second Defendant also refers to Issue 15 of "Impact"
magazine, published by the International Association of
Scientologists in 1987, which he asserts states "who the
current real leaders of the church are" and that "these
people control ALL of Scientology worldwide" without
adducing any evidence in support of this statement. I have
already deposed as to the ecclesiastical hierarchy and
would simply reiterate that it is the boards of directors
or equivalent of the Church corporations which control
those corporations and their activities. There is now
produced and shown to me marked "HMB 9" a copy of a booklet
"The Corporations of Scientology" which gives further
information about the various corporations which make up
the Church of Scientology hierarchy. This booklet does not
discuss CST because it is not part of the hierarchy and has
no role in it.
13. Save as detailed below, much of the documentation sought by
the Defendants to be disclosed is not and has not been in the
possession, custody or power of the Plaintiff. This is
not to say necessarily that all such documents are not or
never have been in the custody, possession or power of
other Churches, Missions and related social reform
organisations. The Plaintiff has no right (whether legal
14
or moral) to call for documents or information from Church
of Scientology International or any other Church following
the doctrines of Scientology.
14. In paragraph 3 the Second Defendant asserts that the
documents referred to in paragraph 1 of his Affidavit
relate to the matters in question in these proceedings. I
will deal with these in turn:
15
a. All issue of the Rehabilitation Project Force
There is no reference in any of the Defendant's
pleadings to the Rehabilitation Project Force. In
any event, this broad request is not limited in time
and these documents are not relevant to the matters in
question in these proceedings.
b. The Sea Organisation billion year contract
Undue influence is not pleaded by the Defendants and
this document is not relevant to the matters in
question in these proceedings.
c. L Ron Hubbard correspondence
These documents are not and never have been in the
possession, custody or power of the Plaintiff, and to
the best of my knowledge and belief no genuine
documents as are described exist or have ever existed.
d. Plaintiff's current price list
Fraud has not been pleaded by the Defendants; this
document is not therefore relevant to the matters in
question in these proceedings. The Plaintiff has had
in its possession, custody or power the list of fixed
donations required for its services dated 1983 which
may be relevant on quantum.
16
e. Impact magazine Issue 15
This document is not relevant to the matters in
question in these proceedings but the Plaintiff does
not object to disclosing it. I would however draw the
attention of this Honourable Court to the fact that
this document is already in the possession of the
Second Defendant, excerpts being exhibited to this
Affidavit.
f. Tapes made by David Mayo and L Ron Hubbard
These documents are not and never have been in the
Plaintiff's possession, custody or power. Furthermore
the Second Defendant makes bald and contentious
allegations of fraud which are not contained in the
pleadings. The characterisation of these materials by
the Second Defendant as "pernicious nonsense" and
"mumbo- jumbo" is a complete volte-face on his part.
In their Defence, the Defendants admitted that the
copies of the NOTs documents forming the subject-
matter of the balance of these proceedings were taken
for their own purposes and that these purposes were
"the furtherance of dissident groups of
scientologistws [sic] not associated with but hostile
to the Plaintiffs and purporting to be able to teach
and counsel at all levels, including advanced levels
of Scientology". There is now produced and shown to me
marked "HMB 10" copies of two magasines distributed by
a group of which the Second and Third Defendant formed
17
part and which contain price lists for services being
provided by that group using these materials, thus
demonstrating that their present pejorative
characterisations of these materials are calculated
solely with a view to avoiding liability for their
actions. Further, the status of the materials as a
trade secret has been recognised. For example in
Bridge Publications Inc. v. Vien 827 E.Supp, 629, 632
(S.D.Cal. 1993) a copy of which is now produced and
shown to me marked "HMB 11" the Court found that "as
a matter of law, plaintiffs' 'Advanced Technology'
qualifies as a trade secret ..." which was defined by
the Court as "information which has independent
economic value from not being generally known, the
secrecy of which has been reasonably protected, or
reasonably attempted to be protected." The NOTs
materials are part of the 'Advanced Technology'. The
same view was expressed by the Court in Religious
Technology Center et al v. Wollersheim et al to which
I have referred in paragraph 8 above. The Court
stated regarding the NOTs materials that "the body of
material that is at issue here clearly meets the
definition of a trade secret and of a set of trade
secrets ... I am probably also convinced that these
are sacred scriptures viewed from the standpoint of
those persons who are Scientologists." There is now
produced and shown to me marked "HMB 12" a true copy
of the transcript of the hearing which contains this
18
statement at page 382:20-25 and additional supporting
statements at page 384:5-19. With regard to David
Mayo, claims that he was badly treated and that hi is
an authority who needs to examine these materials, I
am informed by the Church of Scientology
International's United States attorneys and verily
believe that David Mayo is an individual who was
living in the United States in 1983 who received
materials stolen from the Church and subsequently
altered them for his own financial gain, through the
delivery of Church of Scientology services by a group
of which he was part. There is now produced and shown
to me marked "HMB 13" a copy of that group's price
list. It is clear from that group's returns of income
in the United States that his group made nearly
$2,000,000 from their delivery of these services.
There is now produced and shown to me marked "HMB 14"
true copies of such returns for the years 1983-1985.
The Court in the United States found that Mayo's
claim, namely that he had written the materials and
did not need to have stolen materials to prepare an
altered version of them, was not credible. There is
now produced and shown to me marked "HMB 15" a true
copy of the published declaration, pages 517 and 518 of
which I would refer this Honourable Court.
19
g. Sunshine Rundown, OT 2 and OT 3
These documents are not the subject matter of these
proceedings and are not relevant to any of the matters
in questions in these proceedings.
h. Tapes of MCCS meetings
These documents are not and never have been in the
Plaintiff's possession, custody or power. I am
informed by the Church of Scientology International's
'United States attorneys and verily believe that these
tapes were recorded in connection with a project which
was never implemented. They have no bearing on the
current corporate structure. I have already referred
this Honourable Court to the booklet "Corporations of
Scientology", found at Exhibit HMB 9 hereto, which
does set out the current corporate structure for the
Church of Scientology hierarchy.
i. Mission Corporate Category Sort out plan
The Plaintiff does not now nor ever has had these
documents in its possession, custody or power.
j. Commodore's Messenger Logs
The Plaintiff does not now nor ever has had these
documents in its possession, custody or power.
20
k. Steven Bisby personnel files
The Plaintiff does not now nor never has had these
documents in its possession, custody and power.
l. NOTs bulletins
Although the Plaintiff has the original documents,
the copy documents the subject matter of the balance
of these proceedings are held by Messrs Alan Taylor &
Co. pursuant to the order of Mr Justice Boreham dated
29th March 1984. The Plaintiff would be most
concerned to ensure that these copy documents are not
put into the hands of the Defendants in view of the
history of the Defendants' role in taking and use of
such documents without authority as appears from the
Statement of Claim.
15. Turning now to the Second Defendant's Supplementary
Affidavit sworn on 4th January 1994, and I would stress
that this Affidavit was sworn on his own behalf and not on
behalf of any other Defendant herein, none of the documents
listed in paragraph 1 are the subject of an application by
the First or Second Defendant, or indeed any Defendant,
presently before this Honourable Court.
16. Furthermore, none of these documents are relevant to the
matters in question in these proceedings, specifically:
21
a. The Second Defendant claims (in the second sub-
paragraph under paragraph 4) that it is "our
contention" that interference with the Plaintiff is
trifling as they have no ownership of any property
that " we" are accused of interfering with. This is
not what the Defendants have pleaded. On the
contrary, by paragraph 1 of their Defence the
Defendants have admitted and averred that the
Plaintiff was the owner and/or entitled to the
immediate possession of the original documents the
subject-matter of these proceedings (ie the NOTs
materials). The First, Second and Third Defendants
herein have already admitted the wrongful conversion
of these materials and on 14th July 1984 judgment was
entered against them for damages to be assessed for
wrongful interference with an Order for costs. At the
same time, Mr Justice Kennedy ordered that the
Defendants do deliver up the original NOTs materials
stolen from the Plaintiff's premises in Copenhagen.
b. The Second Defendant also seems to assert, in the last
sub-paragraph of paragraph 2 of his Affidavit, that
the Plaintiff has no cause of action. No application
has been made to strike out these proceedings on that
ground. This assertion is in the circumstances of
these proceedings ridiculous. I would also refer this
Honourable Court to the Affidavit of Edith Maria
Loringett sworn on 16th March 1984 and in particular
22
Exhibit EL 4 thereto which is a licence in favour of
the Plaintiff in relation to inter alia the NOTs
materials.
c. I deal with the application by the third and Fourth
Defendants for an Order that the Plaintiff give
security for costs in a separate Affidavit and would
simply herein refer this Honourable Court to pp. xx -
xxi of Exhibit HMB 1 and in particular the photograph
marked " Copenhagen, Denmark" which shows one of the
large buildings owned by the Plaintiff.
d. There is no pleading on the part of any of the
Defendants that there was no consideration provided by
the Plaintiff in return for any undertakings the
Defendants may have made. Neither do the Defendants
plead fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the
Plaintiff.
e. In relation to document 1(f), this is already in
evidence as exhibit EM 4 to the Affidavit of Edith May
Loringett as stated in paragraph (b) above.
17. In relation to any failure to provide discovery, as I have
already deposed in paragraph 1 hereof, this firm was
instructed in place of the Plaintiff's former solicitors on
26th November last and I am unable to comment on matters
prior to that date. However, it appears that none of the
23
parties have complied with the directions herein and steps are
now being taken to remedy this so far as the Plaintiff
is concerned.
18. The Second Defendant makes a gratuitous reference to an
application on the Defendants' part to strike these
proceedings out for want of prosecution alleging
inexcusable delay. The Second Defendant is perfectly well
aware that the Defendants' application was dismissed and
costs were awarded against the Defendants and it is quite
improper for him to reiterate these allegations when the
matter has already been. the subject of interlocutory
proceedings.
19. Finally, the First and Second Defendants are seeking to
amend his pleading. This application was made by Summons
dated 3rd February 1994. The trial of this action is
fixed for 21st February 1994, just two weeks hence. The
Defence in this action was served on 3rd March 1992 and the
First and Second Defendants have had therefore considerable
opportunity to amend their pleading since that date. It is
manifestly an injustice that the Plaintiff should now be
required to deal with what is an entirely new issue at this
late stage in the proceedings and I would therefore humbly
request this Honourable Court not to grant the First and
Second Defendants leave to amend their Defence.
24
20. Turning now to the Affidavit of Robin Edwin Bates,
Solicitor for the Third and Fourth Defendants herein, I
would comment as follows:
21. In relation to paragraph 2 of Mr Bates' said Affidavit, I
have already adequately dealt with these matters above.
22. In regard to the personnel, ethics and auditing files of
the Third and Fourth Defendants, these are not now and have
never been in the possession of the Plaintiff. Neither
have the Defendants nor any of them ever been contractually
bound, punished or treated in any way by the Plaintiff.
Until the First, Second and Third Defendants by subterfuge
wrongfully converted the NOTs materials to their own use
they were not known to the Plaintiff and I refer this
Honourable Court to paragraph 6 of the Affidavit of Edith
Maria Loringett sworn on 16th March 1984 in this regard.
23. I therefore humbly request this Honourable Court not to
make the Orders sought by the Defendants herein.