Re State of Norway’s Application (No 2): CA 1988

The basic requirement for an issue estoppel to arise was that ‘the earlier determination relied on as raising an issue estoppel shall have been fundamental to the decision first arrived at’. The Board did not accept that an issue estoppel is impossible if the first decision could not be appealed.


May LJ, Balcombe LJ


[1988] 3 WLR 603


Evidence (Proceedings in Other Jurisdictions) Act 1975


England and Wales


CitedDuedu v Yiboe PC 1961
. .
See AlsoIn 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 by:

CitedGood Challenger Navegante S A v Metalexportimport SA CA 24-Nov-2003
The claimant sought to enforce an arbitration award made in 1983. Time might otherwise have expired, but the claimants relied on a fax which they said was an acknowledgement of the debt, and also upon a finding in a Romanian court which created an . .
Appeal fromIn re Norway’s Applications HL 1990
The house considered appeals from the two earlier applications, upholding the first and reversing the second. . .
CitedUnited States of America v Philip Morris Inc and others QBD 10-Dec-2003
Witness orders were sought in respect of professionals resident in England to support litigation in the US. They objected on the ground that the terms of the order sought suggested improper behaviour, and that an order would anticipate breach of . .
Appeal fromRe State of Norway’s Application (No 2) HL 1989
The government of Norway sought evidence here to support a claim for tax in Norway.
Held: The State of Norway’s application requesting the oral examination of two witnesses residing in England did not fall foul of the Revenue rule. A claim . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.188232