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, Phillips LJ said: ‘In my judgment the test is simply whether, in all the circumstances, it is both just and convenient to make the order. In applying this test the court will have regard to the fact that it is a very considerable imposition to subject a defendant to cross-examination and consider carefully whether or not alternative means of achieving the same end that are less burdensome. The Court has to weigh the various options in order to decide which best meet the dual requirements of justice and convenience.’


Phillips LJ, Toulson J


Times 22-Oct-1996, [1996] EWCA Civ 759, [1998] 1 WLR 294




England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedKensington International Ltd v Republic of Congo and Another ComC 20-Jul-2006
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 . .
See AlsoYukong Lines Ltd v Rendsburg Investments Corporation and Others (No 2) QBD 23-Sep-1997
Repudiation by charterer: Funds were transferred by a charterer’s ‘alter ego’ to another company controlled by him with intent to defeat owner’s claim – whether ‘alter ego’ acting as undisclosed principal of charterer – whether permissible to pierce . .
CitedJSC BTA Bank v Mukhtar Ablyazov and Others QBD 16-Oct-2009
Application by the claimants for an order that the first defendant attend for cross-examination upon his affidavits as to assets and as to his answers to questions posed. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.90680