21 It seems to me that the real question in this application is whether or not the overarching obligations under the Civil Procedure Act required the defendant's legal practitioners to abandon the defendant's denial of the loan agreement (and the corresponding allegation that the plaintiffs' emails were false) at the start of the trial, or on either of its first two days. In defence of their position, the solicitors for the defendant point to the fact that a critical original email[12] (if not the critical original email) was not provided to them (or tendered) until the second day of the trial.[13] The solicitors for the defendant say that, without access to this original email, their position was as described by Mr Liddle. That is, it was difficult to determine whether or not the other emails of which they were aware which had been produced by the plaintiffs were genuine. The plaintiffs dispute this,[14] and say that in any event, other emails, sufficient to show that the defendant's allegations were without foundation, had been provided to the defendant's solicitors prior to the commencement of the trial. Additionally, the plaintiffs contend that notwithstanding that the critical email was not in the court book and was not produced by them at trial until the second day (together with Mr Liddle's supplementary report), the email had been provided to the defendant's solicitors as part of the discovery process on 5 and 6 October, and was thus available to the defendant's expert.