Den Norske Bank ASA v Antonatos and Another: CA 7 Apr 1998

The defendants appealed orders requiring them to attend court and provide evidence under cross-examination. They claimed a prvilege against self-incrimination.
Waller LJ said: ‘A witness is entitled to claim the privilege in relation to any piece of information or evidence on which the prosecution might wish to rely in establishing guilt. And, as it seems to me, it also applies to any piece of information or evidence on which the prosecutor would wish to rely in making his decision whether to prosecute or not.’ and ‘It is finally important to recognise that it is only in exceptional circumstances that cross-examination would be ordered on an affidavit sworn pursuant to a Mareva order.’


Waller, Millett, Chadwick LJJ


[1998] EWCA Civ 649, [1999] QB 271, [1998] 3 All ER 74, [1998] 3 WLR 711, [1998] Lloyd’s Rep Bank 253




England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedMohamed, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 1) Admn 21-Aug-2008
The claimant had been detained by the US in Guantanamo Bay suspected of terrorist involvement. He sought to support his defence documents from the respondent which showed that the evidence to be relied on in the US courts had been obtained by . .
CitedPhillips v Newsgroup Newspapers Ltd and Others ChD 17-Nov-2010
The claimant had been assistant to a well known publicist. The defendant had settled an action brought by her principal for hacking his mobile telephone, in the course of which it appeared that the claimant’s phone had also been hacked. She now . .
CitedJSC BTA Bank v Mukhtar Ablyazov and Others QBD 16-Oct-2009
Application by the claimants for an order that the first defendant attend for cross-examination upon his affidavits as to assets and as to his answers to questions posed. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 18 November 2022; Ref: scu.144127