Polock v Garle: 1898

Lord Lindley MR said: ‘The Bankers’ Books Evidence Acts were passed for the obvious purpose of getting over a difficulty and hardship as to the production of bankers’ books. If such books contained anything which would be evidence for either of the parties, the banker or his clerk had to produce them at the trial under a subpoena duces tecum, which was an intolerable inconvenience to bankers when the books were in daily use. The leading object of the Acts was to protect bankers from that inconvenience. This is accompanied by the first six sections of the Act of 1879, which enable bankers to send attested copies of entries in their books instead of producing the books.’ but ‘ . . when an account is the account of a person who has nothing to do with the litigation, the Court ought to look to the effect in practice of such an order on the rights of third parties, and to take care that this section is not made a means of oppression.’

Judges:

Lord Lindley MR

Citations:

[1898] 1 Ch 1

Statutes:

Bankers’ Books Evidence Act 1879 7

Cited by:

ConsideredDouglas and others v The Right Honourable Sir Lynden Oscar Pindling PC 13-May-1996
(Bahamas) A commission investigating the activities of a company, sought disclosure of its bankers records. The committee held that this was not a constitutional issue, and that leave to appeal as of right did not exist, but special leave was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Banking, Litigation Practice

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.183479