Letters of Request had been received for the production of document to be used in litigation in the US. It was complained that they were drafted so widely as to amount to a fishing expedition.
Held: ‘an English court must look at the issue of the relevance of the requested testimony, if it is raised, in broad terms, leaving to the foreign court, in all but the clearest cases, the decision as to whether particular answers, or answers on particular topics, would constitute relevant admissible evidence.’ and ‘In relation to oral testimony . . an objection of ‘fishing’ has [no] substance except in a case in which the conclusion can be reached, whether from the terms of the request or from other sources, that the intention underlying the request is not one of obtaining evidence for use at trial. ‘ The request was refused.
Judges:
Sir Richard Scott V-C
Citations:
[1998] EWCA Civ 817, [1998] CLC 1225, [1999] ILPr 179, [1999] 1 WLR 1154, [1998] 4 All ER 439
Links:
Statutes:
Evidence (Proceedings in Other Jurisdictions) Act 1975, Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – In re Asbestos Insurance Coverage HL 1985
A London insurance brokerage company had been ordered to produce documents pursuant to a letter of request issued by a Californian court in proceedings brought by manufacturers of asbestos against their insurers. The 1975 Act empowered the court to . .
Cited – Senior v Holdsworth 1976
A subpoena requiring the production of documents had been served.
Held: A witness ought not to be required to comply with a letter of request if it appeared to the court ‘that the request is irrelevant, or fishing, or speculative, or . .
Cited – In re Westinghouse Uranium Contract HL 1978
‘The fact, if it be so, that evidence so obtained may be used in other proceedings and indeed may be central in those proceedings is no reason for refusing to allow it to be requested’ Lord Fraser said: ‘in judging the nature of the letters rogatory . .
Cited – In the Matter of a Civil Matter Now Pending In District Court for Second Judicial District, County of Ramsey, State of Minnesota CA 30-Jul-1997
When considering an application under the 1975 Act, the court must not only observe the restrictions imposed by the 1975 Act; it must also hold a fair balance between the interests of the requesting court and the interests of the witness. ‘because . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice
Updated: 18 November 2022; Ref: scu.144296