Thanks to Joel for passing this article on. No wonder His Honour went a bit bonkers and started using words not found at breathable altitudes. 2643 pages of judgment for bedtime reading, with a ”diet” 27 page summary for the punters.
I’ve reproduced some nice statistics of the Bell litigation (so far) here.
3.2. Statistics
3.2.1. The hearing
Hearing period: 22 July 2003 to 22 September 2006
Hearing days: 404
- Plaintiffs’ opening – 120 days.
- Plaintiffs’ witnesses – 62 days.
- Defendants’ opening – 43 days.
- Defendants’ witnesses – 170 days.
- Post-evidence interlocutory hearings – 4 days.
- Oral closing submissions – 5 days.
3.2.2. The witnesses
Number of witnesses: 166
- Witnesses called and cross-examined – 155.
- Witnesses providing statements (not cross-examined) – 11.
- Lay witnesses – 154.
- Expert witnesses – 12.
3.2.3. The documents
- Documents (pages) imaged for the trial book – 134,706 (452,212).
- Documents (pages) tendered in evidence – 86,340 (318,819).
- Transcript – 37,105 pages.
- Pages (documents) of written closing submissions – 36,932 (770).
3.2.4. Numbers of documents referred to during the hearing
- In the transcript – 14,722.
- In witness statements – 21,347.
- In written closing submissions – 25,471.
3.2.5. The reasons for decision
- Total number of words – 1,084,735.
- Total number of pages – 2,643.
- Pages of analysis and reasoning – 2,511.
- Pages of Schedules – 78.
- Number of paragraphs – 9,762.
- Number of cases cited – 547.
- Animals painted with the name “Bondie” and sacrificed- 12367.
For extra hilarity, Justice Owen also writes:
“For those who are environmentally conscious, a rough calculation indicates that to create one complete set of the tendered documents would use 3.5 tonnes of paper. For that amount of paper, the manufacturing process would require 2.5 pine trees and 200,000 litres of water.”
No doubt, having smashed his head against the wall 1,084,735 times over the space of 5 years, his Honour deserved to write his name into the history books with a spectacularly verbose piece of writing. I’ve never been a fan of a huge word when there’s a smaller one to do the job, but honestly, when you’re forced to listen to snarky dorks rabbiting on about creditor rights for months on end, you have to do something to entertain yourself. However, I’d personally prefer sudoku over a “brachyology”.
Egyah! I think I just wrote a mediocre blog post espousing twee opinions on a topic I don’t really care about! I feel dirty.
With grave apologies,
The Wombat