‘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 as a whole in the court must look at them in the unamended form in which they were received by the American Court’ A ‘fishing expedition’ is clearly impermissible in an application of request under the Act. The court supported the distinction between ‘a process by way of discovery and testimony for that purpose’ and ‘testimony for the trial itself’: ‘which it is in fact is not to be determined by the drafting of Westinghouse’s lawyers but objectively by the nature of the testimony sought. The fact that any evidence obtained is intended to be put in at the trial is quite consistent with the inquiry extending (impermissibly) to trains of inquiry which might produce such evidence.’
Judges:
Lord Wilberforce, Lord Fraser
Citations:
[1978] AC 547, [1978] 1 All ER 434
Statutes:
Evidence (Proceedings In Other Jurisdictions) Act 1975
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Approved – Radio Corporation of America v Ranland Corporation 1956
The 1856 Act cannot be used to allow a fishing expedition for evidence. The court distinguished between ‘a process by way of discovery and testimony for that purpose’ and ‘testimony for the trial itself’. . .
Appeal from – Rio Tinto Zinc Corporation v Westinghouse Electric Corporation, Re Westinghouse Electric Corpn Uranium Contract Litigation MDL Docket No 235 (No 2) HL 1977
The court considered a claim that a party was not compelled to give evidence where it might incriminate him: ‘No one is bound to furnish information against himself. It [the common law] says: ‘If a witness claims the protection of the court, on the . .
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Finninvest SPA Admn 25-Oct-1996
The appellant sought leave to appeal to the House of Lords. They certified three questions, as to whether the word ‘evidence’ in the 1990 Act has the same or a wider meaning than in the 1975 Act, whether making an illicit contribution to a political . .
Cited – In re State of Norway’s Application (No 1) CA 1987
There were taxation proceedings in Norway. One question was whether the Norwegian taxpayer controlled a trust which owned some shares. Letters rogatory issued by the Norwegian Court requested the oral examination of two witnesses in the United . .
Cited – First American Corporation and others v Sheik Zayed Bin Sultan Al-Nahyan and Others CA 12-May-1998
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 . .
Cited – Charman v Charman CA 20-Dec-2005
The court considered orders to third parties abroad to produce docments for use in ancillary relief proceedings. The husband had built up considerable assets within an offshore discretionary trust. The court was asked whether these were family . .
Cited – Aziz v Aziz and others CA 11-Jul-2007
The claimant sought return of recordings and of money paid to the defendant through an alleged fraud or threats. She was the former wife of the Sultan of Brunei and head of state, who now sought an order requiring the court to protect his identity . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice
Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.188700