The claimant sought leave to cross examine an officer of the defendant in connection with his affidavit sworn in search order proceedings. The case had a history of deceit and dishonest oral evidence.
Held: Though such an order would be exceptional, sufficient grounds had been shown in this case.
Judges:
Morison J
Citations:
[2006] EWHC 1848 (Comm)
Links:
Citing:
Cited – Maclaine Watson and Co Ltd v International Tin Council (No. 2) CA 1988
When the ITC did not satisfy an arbitral award made against it, the judgment creditor sought to discover where its assets could be found. Application to the Court was made under RSC 0.48 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 and under the Court’s inherent . .
See Also – Kensington International Ltd v Republic of the Congo; Glencore Energy UK Limited, Sphynx UK Limited, Sphynx (BDA) Limited, Africa Oil and Gas Corporation, Cotrade SA (Third Parties) ComC 28-Nov-2005
The claimant had taken an assignment of debts owed by the defendant, and obtained judgment in US$121m. They sought to enforce the judgment and obtained third party debt orders against the parties listed.
Held: Officers in the third party . .
Cited – CBS United Kingdom Ltd v Perry 1985
The parties have the right to ask for cross-examination in the context of the Anton Piller jurisdiction. Falconer J said: ‘Some inconsistencies may well become apparent between what is said when they respondents are taken by surprise when confronted . .
Cited – Yukong Lines v Rendsburg Investment Corporation CA 17-Oct-1996
An order for cross examination in an application for a Mareva order is exceptional, but permissible if it is just and convenient that such an order should be made. In applying the test of whether it would be ‘just and convenient’ to make the order, . .
Cited – Phillips v Symes CA 2003
Courts should be reluctant to exclude altogether evidence merely because it is written. If the purpose of the order sought was to trace assets it would be wrong to permit cross-examination which was designed to show that there had been a contempt of . .
See Also – Kensington International Ltd v Republic of The Congo ComC 16-Apr-2003
. .
See Also – Kensington International Ltd v Republic of the Congo CA 13-May-2003
The claimant had obtained judgment against the defendant for US$60m, and had sought a Mareva injunction against the defendant republic’s assets and against the assets of companies through which it operated in the UK. The claimant now appealed . .
See Also – Kensington International Ltd and Another v Republic Of the Congo ComC 26-May-2006
. .
Cited by:
See Also – Kensington International Ltd v Republic of the Congo ComC 13-Jul-2007
. .
See Also – Kensington International Ltd v Republic of the Congo ComC 13-Jul-2007
. .
See Also – Kensington International Ltd v Republic of Congo CA 7-Nov-2007
The defendants appealed against orders requiring them to disclose documents in an action regarding the payment of bribes, saying that the requirement effectively required them to incriminate themselves.
Held: The appeal failed. The public . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice
Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.243428