I managed to get hold of an earlier draft of the decision which had the following arguments that did not make the final decision:
GROUND 6 - PROPORTIONALITY
155A. Mr Southern QC's very junior counsel argued that each of the claimants' direct male linear ancestors was more substantial than those of the defendant. Counsel relied on the skeleton argument made on the back of the photocopy of Article 6. Mr Eadie for the defendant suggested that this was complete and utter nonsense. I agree with Mr Eadie. To quote Lord Denning MR in A Smith v Jones [1995 BMW 330i] "as many taxpayers have uttered for time immemorial, it is well know that [the defendant] is a complete and utter B....". As result of the defendant's unknown parentage, it cannot be said that the mass of the claimants' male parents are proportionately more massive than those of the defendant.
155A. Mr Southern QC's very junior counsel argued that each of the claimants' direct male linear ancestors was more substantial than those of the defendant. Counsel relied on the skeleton argument made on the back of the photocopy of Article 6. Mr Eadie for the defendant suggested that this was complete and utter nonsense. I agree with Mr Eadie. To quote Lord Denning MR in A Smith v Jones [1995 BMW 330i] "as many taxpayers have uttered for time immemorial, it is well know that [the defendant] is a complete and utter B....". As result of the defendant's unknown parentage, it cannot be said that the mass of the claimants' male parents are proportionately more massive than those of the defendant.
Comment