The rules do not limit the inherent jurisdiction of the court to make requests to foreign courts to ensure the production of documents from abroad. There is no logical reason why the principles by reference to which the court determines whether, and if so to what extent, to require a person who is not a party to the proceedings to produce documents or to give oral evidence should differ according to whether he is in England and Wales or abroad. The principles determinative of an application for an order for the issue of a letter of request in respect of documents or of oral evidence (‘an outgoing request’) were the same as those determinative of an application for an order giving effect to a letter of request received from a foreign court in respect of documents or of oral evidence (‘an incoming request’).
Judges:
Sir Donald Nicholls VC
Citations:
Independent 21-Jul-1993, Gazette 17-Dec-1993, Times 02-Aug-1993, [1994] Ch 142, [1994] 1 All ER 755, [1994] EMLR 229, [1994] 2 WLR 241
Statutes:
Rules of the Supreme Court 39.22
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
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 – Flood v Times Newspapers Ltd and others QBD 5-Mar-2009
The claimant police officer complained of an alleged defamation in an article published by the defendant. The defendant wished to obtain information from the IPCC to show that they were investigating the matter as a credible issue. The court . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice
Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.80798