Mr Norgren claimed andpound;250,000 due under an agreement with Mr Brock. Mr Norgren had earlier introduced Mr Bock to Mr (Tiny) Rowland, and this dispute formed part of a much larger one. When Mr Norgren’s case came on for trial, he was arrested on an extradition warrant and held in custody until Mr Rowland stood surety for him and he obtained bail. He alleged that Mr Bock had instigated his arrest but was unable to prove that to the necessary standard in contempt proceedings which he later brought against Mr Bock. His action was relisted in February 2002. Because of his 1997 experience, he applied for a VCF order. The master refused it but Newman J granted it on appeal and, having shortly afterwards heard the action, found for Mr Norgren on his claim. The court considered whether a party could be allowed to give evidence by video from outside the jurisdiction.
Held: ‘In my judgment full access to the court for justice in a civil matter should not, save in exceptional circumstances, be at a price of the litigant losing his liberty and facing criminal proceedings.’ The court referred to an advantage given to witnesses giving evidence by video link of having a short time lag to consider an answer.
Judges:
Newman J
Citations:
[2002] 4 All ER 370
Statutes:
Cited by:
Cited – Polanski v Conde Nast Publications Limited CA 11-Nov-2003
The claimant sought damages for defamation. He feared arrest and extradition to the US if he came to England, and was granted an order allowing him to give evidence by video link. The defendant appealed that order.
Held: There was no absolute . .
Cited – Polanski v Conde Nast Publications Ltd HL 10-Feb-2005
The claimant wished to pursue his claim for defamation against the defendant, but was reluctant to return to the UK to give evidence, fearing arrest and extradition to the US. He appealed refusal of permission to be interviewed on video tape. Held . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice
Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.188242