In financial proceedings in England following divorce the wife alleged – and the husband denied – that he was the beneficial owner of shares held by a Gibraltarian trust company. The English court had ordered the issue of a letter of request to the Gibraltarian court that an officer of the trust company be required both to give oral evidence identifying the beneficial owner of the shares and to produce all documents in relation to such ownership. The officer sought to set aside an order in Gibraltar which had in both respects given effect to the request. The chief justice had to apply provisions of Gibraltar’s Evidence Ordinance
Held: He refused to set aside the order: ‘ . . the documents requested for production in this case are narrowly confined to the single issue they are aimed to support. The documents are more than likely in the possession of the applicant and are readily identifiable. Of course, it is impossible for the petitioner to know the specific identity of individual documents. But the applicant is being asked a specific question and is being asked to produce the documents to prove his answers. That is not a fishing expedition in the sense of casting a line in the hope that something will be caught: the fish has been identified and the court is endeavouring to spear it.’
Judges:
Schofield CJ
Citations:
[1998] 3 FCR 35
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Commonwealth, Family, Litigation Practice
Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.236600
