|
SMELLIE, J.: By summons dated October 28th, 1993 the defendant |
|
seeks the discharge of an ex parte order made herein on October 1st, 1993. |
|
The ex parte order was made pursuant to letters rogatory from the 141st |
|
District Judicial Court of Tarrant County, Texas. The order provided, |
25 |
among other things, for the appointment of an examiner to record the oral |
|
evidence of a witness, the secretary of the defendant company, which has |
|
its corporate headquarters in the Cayman Islands. That witness is also |
|
required by the order to produce classes of documents belonging to the |
|
defendant company and described in the schedule to the letters rogatory. |
30 |
The ex parte order was, by its nature, a provisional order (see U.S. v. |
|
Carver (8) (1980–83 CILR at 309)) and it follows that the defendant has |
|
locus standi in these proceedings to seek its discharge (see Boeing Co. v. |
|
PPG Indus. Inc. (2)). |
|
The defendant raises three main objections. The first is that there was no |
35 |
jurisdiction to make the order or to grant the request of the Texas court, as |
|
the proceedings contemplated by the request do not come within the |
|
meaning of “civil proceedings” as that expression appears in the enabling |
|
legislation, the Evidence (Proceedings in Other Jurisdictions) (Cayman |
|
Islands) Order 1978 (“the 1978 Order”). The second ground of objection is |
40 |
that the 1978 Order was never intended to be a means by which parties to |
|
an action could obtain inter partes discovery or interrogatories in the |
|
action but instead was intended only to assist parties to obtain evidence |
|
abroad from strangers to the action who would otherwise not be amenable |
|
for those purposes. If that is so, there would, on this ground also, be no |
45 |
jurisdiction to grant the request, as the respondents are respectively the |
|
defendants to the action and an officer of the defendant. The third ground |
|
of objection is of the more usual kind, that the request lacks specificity and |
|
that it falls foul of the restrictions contained in s.2(4)(a) and (b) of the |
|
Schedule to the 1978 Order. After considering the general principles |
5 |
which the decided cases have developed for the guidance of the court and |
|
which must be applied to this particular matter, I will then turn to deal with |
|
each ground of objection in turn. |
|
General Principles |
10 |
The jurisdiction of the court to grant letters rogatory is entirely statutory |
|
(see Rio Tinto Zinc Corp. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp. (6)). The enabling |
|
provisions are contained in the 1978 Order which extends the operation of |
|
the United Kingdom Evidence (Proceedings in Other Jurisdictions) Act |
|
1975, as modified and adopted, to the Cayman Islands. The provisions of |
15 |
the 1978 Order which are to be construed for the purposes of this |
|
application, are contained in the Schedule to the Order and are s.1(a) and |
|
(b); s.2(1) and (2)(a) and (2)(b) and (3); and s.2(4)(a) and (b). |
|
Certain provisions of s.1(a) and (b) and of s.2(4)(a) and (b) are of |
|
particular importance and I set them out below: |
20 |
“1. Where an application is made to the Grand Court for an order |
|
for evidence to be obtained in the Cayman Islands, and the court is |
|
satisfied— |
|
(a) that the application is made in pursuance of a request issued |
|
by or on behalf of a court or tribunal (‘the requesting court’) |
25 |
exercising jurisdiction in a country or territory outside the |
|
Cayman Islands; and |
|
(b) that the evidence to which the application relates is to be |
|
obtained for the purposes of civil proceedings which either |
|
have been instituted before the requesting court or whose |
30 |
institution before that court is contemplated, |
|
the Grand Court shall have the powers conferred on it by the |
|
following provisions of this Act.” |
|
Section 2 then describes the sort of orders which the Grand Court may |
|
make in its discretion for the purposes of giving effect to the request of the |
35 |
foreign court. They include orders for the examination of witnesses, either |
|
orally or in writing, and for the production of documents. Section 2(3) |
|
contains the caveat that “an order made under this section shall not require |
|
any particular steps to be taken unless they are steps which can be required |
|
to be taken by way of obtaining evidence for the purposes of civil |
40 |
proceedings.” |
|
Section 2(4) reads: |
|
“An order under this section shall not require a person— |
|
(a) to state what documents relevant to the proceedings to which |
|
the application for the order relates are or have been in his |
45 |
possession, custody or power; or |
|
(b) to produce any document other than particular documents |
|
specified in the order as being documents appearing to the |
|
court making the order to be, or to be likely to be, in his |
|
possession, custody or power.” |
5 |
This provision contains in statutory form the prohibition against pre-trial |
|
discovery and was specifically included in the parent 1975 Act as an |
|
expression of the UK Government’s reservation which was declared |
|
pursuant to art. 23 of the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence |
|
Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters upon accession to the Convention |
10 |
(see Rio Tinto Zinc Corp. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp. (6) ([1978] 1 All |
|
E.R. at 442 and 455)). That reservation specifically prohibits courts in the |
|
United Kingdom (and hence this court) from granting letters rogatory in |
|
aid of pre-trial discovery. |
|
It is the basis of the defendant’s third ground of objection that the |
15 |
request fails to observe this prohibition against pre-trial discovery but is, |
|
instead, a fishing expedition in search of information which may lead to |
|
the discovery of evidence. |
|
In this regard the general principle is that the request, to be allowed, |
|
must be for evidence, that is direct evidence, which can be itself used in |
20 |
the proceedings in the foreign court. Roving enquiries for information, |
|
which in turn may or may not lead to evidence admissible in the foreign |
|
proceedings, are not permitted and the court has no power to assist such |
|
enquiries (see Rio Tinto Zinc Corp. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp. (6)). |
|
The procedure which governs the exercise of the jurisdiction in the |
25 |
Cayman Islands to grant requests for international judicial assistance is set |
|
out in O.70 (in conjunction with rules specified in O.39) of the English |
|
Rules of the Supreme Court (see U.S. v. Carver (8)). |
|
Put in general terms this court has a duty to assist the foreign court to the |
|
extent that it is proper to do so under local law. This principle reflects |
30 |
judicial and international comity and it conforms with the provisions of the |
|
Hague Convention and the spirit of the 1978 Order. Full faith and credit |
|
must be given to the request of the foreign court just as full faith and credit |
|
would be given to a foreign judgment. |
|
The following extract is the statement of principles taken from 1 The |
35 |
Supreme Court Practice 1991, para. 70/1–6/2, at 1143–1144 and culled |
|
from the leading English cases. These were applied by the Cayman Court |
|
of Appeal in the leading local case of U.S. v. Carver (8). I have set them |
|
out in extenso because they all fall to be considered in my assessment of |
|
the submissions made on both sides in the present matter. |
40 |
“As a matter of jurisdiction, in the ordinary way and in the absence |
|
of evidence to the contrary the English Court should be prepared to |
|
accept the statement of the foreign Court in its request that the |
|
evidence is required for the purposes of civil or criminal proceedings, |
|
as the case may be, in that Court. . . . On the other hand, the form of |
45 |
the letter of request is not conclusive; the Court must examine the |
|
request objectively by the nature of the testimony sought . . . and has |
|
to look at the substance of the matter . . . but it may have regard to |
|
what was said in the foreign Court when the request for evidence was |
|
issued. . . . |
5 |
As a matter of discretion . . . the English court should exercise its |
|
discretion to make the order asked for unless it is satisfied that the |
|
application would be regarded as falling within the description of |
|
frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of the process of the Court. . . . |
|
The English Court has the power to accept or reject the foreign |
10 |
request in whole or in part, whether as to oral or documentary |
|
evidence, and it can and should delete from the foreign request any |
|
parts that are excessive either as regards witnesses or as regards |
|
documents. The English Court will act on the principle that it . . . |
|
should decline to comply with the foreign request in so far as it is not |
15 |
proper or permissible or practicable under English law to give effect |
|
to it. The English Court, moreover, ought not to embark on the |
|
process of re-structuring or re-casting or re-phrasing the foreign |
|
request so that it becomes different in substance from the origi- |
|
nal request. The Court has no power so to modify the original foreign |
20 |
request as to substitute a different category of documents for the |
|
category which has been requested by the foreign Court.” |
|
A further statement of general application is that the foreign request |
|
must be examined to ensure its compliance with the 1978 Order, in |
|
particular as to documents requested. The classes of documents must be |
25 |
clearly defined with particularization of the actual documents and it must |
|
be shown that there is good reason to believe that the documents actually |
|
exist (see Re Asbestos Ins. Coverage Cases (1) ([1985) 1 All E.R. at 721)). |
|
In applying these standards it must be borne in mind that the witness will |
|
be responding to a subpoena duces tecum with the attendant penal |
30 |
sanctions which could flow from non-compliance. A person placed in that |
|
position should not be required to cast about for documents which might |
|
or might not meet the subpoena but instead should be left in no doubt as to |
|
what is required of him (Re Westinghouse Elec. Corp. Uranium Contract |
|
(9), per Lord Denning, M.R. ([1977] 3 All E.R. at 710)). Nonetheless, the |
35 |
standard of particularity required in any given case must be considered in |
|
the context of the circumstances of the case and having regard to the |
|
nature of the documents to be subpoenaed (U.S. v. Carver (8) (1980–83 |
|
CILR at 319)). |
40 |
1. Does the application come within the meaning of “civil pro |
|
ceedings”? |
|
This request is brought pursuant to section 1(b) of the Schedule to the |
|
1978 Order and as such must qualify as a “civil proceeding” within the |
|
meaning of that expression as it is there used. The courts have eschewed |
45 |
any attempt to define or delimit this by categorization and the general |
|
definition most often cited is taken from Re Gross, ex p. Treasury Solicitor |
|
(3) ([1968] 3 All E.R. at 806) where Chapman, J. referred to civil or |
|
commercial matters as “wide general terms covering all kinds of suits, |
|
petitions, summonses, applications for orders, etc., of which courts are |
5 |
competent to take cognisance.” Notwithstanding that wide general |
|
definition, Mr. Henriques for the defendant submitted that there is dicta in |
|
many cases which suggest that the foreign proceedings must involve or |
|
contemplate a “trial” of issues between parties and that a “post-judgment |
|
discovery” procedure of the type involved in this request would be |
10 |
excluded. |
|
The letter of request itself is not comprehensively framed. It fails to |
|
provide a description of the nature of the proceedings pending before the |
|
Texas court. For that purpose I have been referred to the motion for |
|
issuance of the letters rogatory which was filed in the Texas court seeking |
15 |
the letters from that court. In the preamble to that motion, it is stated that |
|
the plaintiff, “VPG, has obtained a default judgment in this action and is |
|
now seeking to conduct post-judgment discovery.” It continues: |
|
“VPG has served counsel of record for the defendant Insurco and |
|
Agrichem with a notice of its intent to take depositions of the |
20 |
corporate representatives of each defendant and has provided each |
|
defendant with a list of the documents it would like them to produce |
|
and the particular subject about which it would like the defendant’s |
|
designated representatives to testify. However, counsel for VPG has |
|
been informed that the defendants’ counsel of record is no longer |
25 |
authorized to accept service on behalf of the defendant and VPG |
|
must therefore proceed with this application for letters rogatory.” |
|
This is the extent to which the background is provided by the foreign court |
|
documentation. |
|
The affidavit filed in this court of R. Douglas Rees, VPG’s attorney in |
30 |
Texas, states that— |
|
“the post-judgment discovery sought by VPG in connection with the |
|
Texas action is a normal course of procedure in Texas when a party |
|
has had a judgment entered against them and has refused to pay that |
|
judgment. Routine post-judgment discovery includes not only |
35 |
written discovery but depositions or examinations of persons who |
|
might have knowledge of the identity and locations of any assets |
|
belonging to the party against whom the judgment has been |
|
rendered.” |
|
Mr. Henriques has observed that the background information does not |
40 |
verify that the proceedings pending before the Texas court are in the |
|
nature of an issue to be tried between the parties, rather that they refer to |
|
nothing more than a roving and investigative procedure designed to |
|
discover whether there might be assets against which the default judgment |
|
might be enforced. That sort of enquiry, he submitted, is not within the |
45 |
meaning of “civil or commercial matter.” In support of that submission he |
|
relied on a judgment of the English High Court (Re International Power |
|
Indus. NV (4)), in which it was held that the 1975 Act was not to be used as |
|
fact-finding machinery in connection with an investigation of the affairs of |
|
a company which was being reorganized by a trustee-in-bankruptcy in the |
5 |
United States and where no contested court proceedings were con- |
|
templated. |
|
I am not persuaded that a true parallel can be drawn between that case in |
|
which the trustee-in-bankruptcy was acting unilaterally in the course of his |
|
investigations, albeit under the supervision of the court, and the present |
10 |
matter in which it appears that the parties are still enjoined before the |
|
Texas court over the issues of post-judgment discovery and enforcement |
|
of the default judgment. Rather, I am inclined to the view posited by Mr. |
|
Quin on behalf of the plaintiff, that a fair parallel is to be drawn with the |
|
procedure set out in O.48 of the English Rules of the Supreme Court |
15 |
which would be applicable in the Cayman Islands. This is the procedure |
|
for the examination of a judgment debtor which, under Cayman law, |
|
allows an examination into the means and property a debtor has to satisfy |
|
the judgment. Here the foreign judgment, although under challenge in the |
|
American court, still stands and the parties remain enjoined before the |
20 |
Texas court over issues involving its enforcement. |
|
The main thrust of Mr. Henriques’ submission in respect of this ground |
|
seeks to advance a requirement that the foreign proceedings to be assisted |
|
must be in the nature of a trial, strictly speaking. By that I understood him |
|
to mean that the evidence must be intended for use at the main trial for the |
25 |
purpose of advancing the plaintiff’s case or for damaging the defendant’s |
|
case. By that measure, as this matter had gone by default and judgment |
|
had been obtained, there could no longer be a “trial” in that sense and this |
|
court therefore would have no jurisdiction to grant the request. |
|
He referred to various dicta in a number of cases which in fact involved |
30 |
requests for evidence to be used at a main trial, most notably the following |
|
dictum from the speech of Viscount Dilhorne (on this aspect in agreement |
|
with the majority views) in Rio Tinto Zinc Corp. v. Westinghouse Elec. |
|
Corp. (6) ([1978] 1 All E.R. at 450): |
|
“If the court is not satisfied that evidence is required, direct evidence |
35 |
for use at a trial as contrasted with information which may lead to the |
|
discovery of evidence, however much the court may be disposed to |
|
accede to the request, it has no power to do so. As I see it it has no |
|
discretion in the matter.” |
|
It is the use of the word “trial” in that context on which Mr. Henriques |
40 |
would seek to lay emphasis. |
|
I do not agree. The proper emphasis there, as indeed in the other |
|
passages cited, with reference to “trial” was upon the difference between, |
|
on the one hand, direct evidence which could itself be used in proceedings |
|
in a foreign court of competent jurisdiction and on the other, information |
45 |
which may lead to the discovery of such evidence. The word “trial” in that |
|
context being nothing more than a general reference to proceedings before |
|
such a competent foreign court. So too I would regard the use of the word |
|
by Lord Diplock in his speech in Rio Tinto Zinc Corp. v. Westinghouse |
|
Elec. Corp. (6) (ibid., at 462). That “civil proceedings” is to be given a |
5 |
wide and permissive interpretation is also to be gleaned from that speech, |
|
in which Lord Diplock said (ibid., at 461–462): |
|
“In my view, ‘civil proceedings’ includes all the procedural steps |
|
taken in the course of the proceedings from their institution up to and |
|
including their completion and, if the procedural system of the |
10 |
requesting court provides for the examination of witnesses or the |
|
production of documents for the purpose of enabling a party to |
|
ascertain whether there exists admissible evidence to support his own |
|
case or to contradict that of his opponent, the High Court has |
|
jurisdiction to make an order under the 1975 Act. Any limitation on |
15 |
the use of this procedure for the purpose of ‘fishing’ discovery is, in |
|
my view, to be found in s.2.” |
|
For the further reason that by acceding to Mr. Henriques’ submissions I |
|
would be delimiting the categories of proceedings in a manner hitherto |
|
avoided by the courts, I also decline to do so. |
20 |
From all the material before me, including the transcript of submissions |
|
made to the Texas court, I have been able to glean that the parties are still |
|
enjoined over the business of post-judgment discovery and enforcement of |
|
the judgment. Those are issues remaining as between the parties to be |
|
determined by the Texas court. |
25 |
I should add that I have considered the Hague Convention itself in |
|
arriving at the decision on this aspect of the matter as the parent 1975 Act |
|
was promulgated with the expressed intention of ratifying the Convention. |
|
Article I states that “a judicial authority of a Contracting State may . . . |
|
request the competent authority of another Contracting State . . . to obtain |
30 |
evidence, or perform some other judicial act.” The article however |
|
contains the following caveat: “The expression ‘other judicial act’ does |
|
not cover the service of judicial documents or the issuance of any process |
|
by which judgments or orders are executed or enforced, or orders for |
|
provisional or protective measures.” One of the effects of that caveat, as |
35 |
Mr. Henriques correctly submits, is to preclude the use of the Convention |
|
for the purpose of the reciprocal enforcement of foreign judgments. For |
|
that purpose resort must be taken to some other arrangement or, where |
|
there is none, the judgment must be sued upon. |
|
Nonetheless, I do not consider that caveat to be applicable to the present |
40 |
case. Shortly put, the distinction is to be found in the wording of art. I |
|
itself. This request does not entail “the issuance of any process by which a |
|
judgment or order is to be executed or enforced.” To widen the |
|
interpretation of that caveat so as to preclude the seeking of evidence |
|
which may lead to later efforts to enforce the foreign judgment would be |
45 |
engrafting an unnatural and unnecessary impediment upon the operation |
|
of the Convention and hence upon the intendment of the 1975 Act and the |
|
1978 Order. |
|
The House of Lords in In re State of Norway’s Application (7) held that |
|
on the true construction of the 1975 Act the question whether proceedings |
5 |
were a “civil or commercial matter” depended on the classification of |
|
those proceedings according to the law of the requesting court and the law |
|
of the court to which the request was made (the English law), since the |
|
classification could not be made by reference to any internationally |
|
acceptable classification. It has already been demonstrated in my view, |
10 |
both under the law of Texas and of the Cayman Islands, that the |
|
proceedings in issue would be regarded as civil proceedings and I |
|
conclude it is not for this court to seek to define such proceedings narrowly |
|
simply by reference to the stage which they have reached—in this case, |
|
the post-judgment discovery stage. |
15 |
The distinction between the obtaining of evidence for use in a foreign |
|
court for the internal advancement in the foreign court of a procedure |
|
which itself may not qualify as a civil proceeding within the meaning of |
|
the statute (e.g. the enforcement of a foreign revenue enactment or the |
|
enforcement of a foreign judgment) and the direct enforcement of such a |
20 |
measure is an important distinction noted in the decision in In re the State |
|
of Norway’s Application (7). It is a distinction to be noted in the context of |
|
this matter where the request is for evidence which it is hoped will |
|
advance the plaintiff’s case for enforcement of the foreign judgment but |
|
is not in itself a request for that enforcement. |
25 |
The foreign request, I have already noted, is not very well drafted. It |
|
offered only an oblique reference to the nature of the proceedings pending |
|
in Texas. By virtue of the general principles already cited, I would have |
|
been at liberty to have the matter referred back to the Texas court for |
|
clarification. There is, however, sufficient information from some of the |
30 |
material which was before the Texas court and which has been referred to |
|
me to enable me to arrive at the view already expressed and at the decision |
|
I have reached. Consequently, I saw no need to require that reference |
|
back. |
|
I can find no good reason of policy or of interpretation to hold that the |
35 |
Texas proceedings are not to be regarded as falling within the ambit of |
|
“civil proceedings” for the purposes of s.1(b) and s.2(3) of the Schedule to |
|
the 1978 Order. |
|
2. Does the 1978 Order allow the obtaining of evidence from parties to |
40 |
an action? |
|
This aspect of the defendant’s argument is not without some difficulty |
|
for, as Mr. Henriques observed, in the ordinary course the foreign court |
|
has the parties to the action before it, amenable to its orders and directions, |
|
and would therefore not require the assistance of another court to secure |
45 |
the evidence of the parties which is required for its proceedings. It |
|
therefore follows, he submitted, that the 1978 Order was never intended to |
|
allow the seeking of evidence from parties to an action but, instead, covers |
|
only evidence to be obtained from strangers or persons not parties to the |
|
action. If this is correct, it would follow that this court would have no |
5 |
jurisdiction to direct compliance with the request in this matter as it seeks |
|
the evidence of the competent officer of the defendant company, Mr. John |
|
Law, in his capacity as secretary of the company. |
|
Mr. Quin did not demur that Mr. Law was for present purposes to be |
|
regarded as a party to the action. He disagreed, however, that there was to |
10 |
be any such restriction as that contended for by Mr. Henriques upon the |
|
operation of the statute. In fact, he positively submitted that as Mr. Law is |
|
a party, s.2(4) of the Schedule to the 1978 Order does not apply to the |
|
seeking of evidence from him, as the restrictions therein contained are |
|
concerned with the seeking and obtaining of evidence from a third party or |
15 |
stranger to the action. If that is so, the request in this matter would need |
|
only comply with the requirements of ss. 1 and 2(3) of the Schedule to the |
|
1978 Order to found the jurisdiction in this court to grant the request. The |
|
standards of particularity contained in s.2(4) would, in that event, have no |
|
bearing on this request. |
20 |
The force of Mr. Quin’s submission in this regard comes from the |
|
historical fact already mentioned, that the equivalent of s.2(4) was |
|
included in the 1975 Act to give statutory expression to the UK’s |
|
reservations against the use of the Convention for the purposes of pre-trial |
|
discovery (in the sense normally taken in the United States in particular) |
25 |
against non-parties to an action. In other words, in the now tried and |
|
proven phrase, to preclude “fishing expeditions” (see Rio Tinto Zinc Corp. |
|
v. Westinghouse Elec Corp. (6), per Lord Wilberforce ([1978] 1 All E.R. |
|
at 442)). |
|
Nonetheless, I find I am unable to agree with Mr. Quin on that narrow |
30 |
application of the sub-section. While it precludes pre-trial discovery as |
|
against non-parties or strangers to the action, I am of the view that it also |
|
would preclude fishing expeditions generally and irrespective of the status |
|
of the person responding to a request. The sub-section explicitly provides |
|
that an order under that section shall not require “a person” responding to a |
35 |
request to give general or unrestricted discovery. I regard that as applying |
|
to any person required to respond to a request by the provision of |
|
documentary evidence. The exclusion of fishing expeditions is a general |
|
exclusion notwithstanding that the legislators may have been specifically |
|
concerned at the time of accession to the Convention not to allow non- |
40 |
parties to be the victims of free-roving pre-trial discovery. The appropriate |
|
restrictions, to be applied on the ambit of the evidence to be obtained from |
|
Mr. Law, will therefore be reflected in the final order. |
|
By the inverse application of this interpretation it follows that I do not |
|
accept Mr. Henriques’ submission that only non-parties or strangers to the |
45 |
foreign action can be directed to give evidence in response to a request. |
|
For this submission, Mr. Henriques relied heavily on the following |
|
passage from the speech of Lord Wilberforce in Rio Tinto Zinc Corp. v. |
|
Westinghouse Elec. Corp. (ibid., at 442): |
|
“These provisions, and especially the words ‘particular documents |
5 |
specified in the order’ (replacing ‘documents to be mentioned in the |
|
order’ in the 1856 Act) together with the expressed duty of the |
|
English court to decide that the documents are or are likely to be in |
|
the possession, custody or power of the person called on to produce, |
|
show in my opinion that a strict attitude is to be taken by English |
10 |
courts in giving effect to foreign requests for the production of |
|
documents by non-party witnesses. They are, in the words of Lord |
|
Goddard, C.J., not to countenance ‘fishing expeditions.’ ” [Emphasis |
|
supplied.] |
|
That passage follows immediately on in the context of his Lordship’s |
15 |
discussion of the historical background to sub-s. 4. It was decided that the |
|
sub-section had its genesis in the reservation, earlier mentioned, made |
|
under art. 23 of the Convention. The reference in that context to “non- |
|
party witnesses” must be viewed against that background. |
|
What is more, the House of Lords was in fact there dealing with a case |
20 |
involving non-party witnesses. The present question did not arise for |
|
consideration and indeed does not seem to have arisen before in any of the |
|
reported cases. |
|
Nothing in that context, to my mind, implies that the statute should not |
|
also be a vehicle for the obtaining of evidence abroad from witnesses who |
25 |
may be described as “party witnesses,” as it is agreed Mr. Law may be |
|
described. |
|
Throughout the speeches in the House of Lords and in the Court of |
|
Appeal in the Westinghouse case (9), there were historical references to |
|
the Foreign Tribunal Evidence Act 1856, the precursor to the 1975 Act. |
30 |
The passage I find most helpful in the present context comes from the |
|
opinion of Lord Denning, M.R. (Re Westinghouse Elec. Corp. Uranium |
|
Contract (9) ([1977] 3 All E.R. at 708–709)): |
|
“The 1856 Act has now been replaced by the Evidence |
|
(Proceedings in Other Jurisdictions) Act 1975. It was passed so as to |
35 |
give effect to a convention held at The Hague in 1968. It makes new |
|
provision for enabling the High Court to assist foreign courts in |
|
obtaining evidence here. Section 2 is expressed in much wider |
|
language than the 1856 Act. The High Court is empowered to make |
|
provision for the examination of witnesses, for the production of |
40 |
documents, for the inspection of property and many other things |
|
which were not within the 1856 Act at all. So long as the evidence is |
|
required for use in civil proceedings, the request of the foreign court |
|
should usually be granted, provided that the evidence is relevant to the |
|
issues in dispute in the foreign court. (The only limitations are those |
45 |
contained in ss. 2(4) and 3. They require separate consideration.)” |
|
Thus, subject to the prohibition against “fishing expeditions” contained in |
|
s.2(4), the modern legislation is to be viewed as widening the ambit of the |
|
courts’ jurisdiction. |
|
No judicial pronouncement in relation to the 1975 Act or its precursor, |
5 |
the 1856 Act, has been brought to my attention which would conclusively |
|
suggest that this statutory scheme enabled the obtaining of evidence only |
|
from persons who are strangers to the foreign proceedings which are to be |
|
assisted by the request. The expressions “any witness or witnesses” and |
|
“any person” as they appeared in the 1856 Act, s.1, in relation to assistors |
10 |
who could be directed to give evidence, were in the widest terms. Nothing |
|
in that section suggested that a particular category, i.e. parties to the |
|
foreign action, were to be excluded. While it may be said that the early |
|
Victorian Parliament never contemplated the existence of a modern |
|
corporate entity which could find itself as a party to proceedings in a |
15 |
foreign jurisdiction while maintaining its physical presence outside of that |
|
jurisdiction, that cannot be said of the promulgators of the modern Act. |
|
Such are the parties here and Mr. Law, the officer based in the Cayman |
|
Islands, is as remote and inaccessible for practical purposes to the Texas |
|
proceedings as any non-party witness overseas might be. |
20 |
For all the foregoing reasons I do not accept the submission that an |
|
order may not go to a witness present in this jurisdiction who may be |
|
described as a “party” to the Texas proceedings. |
|
3. Does the request comply with the standard of particularity contained |
25 |
in s.2(4)(a) and (b) of the Schedule to the Order? |
|
This aspect of the objection is not without merit and, indeed, Mr. Quin |
|
recognized this in conceding that a number of items in the schedule to the |
|
letters rogatory, which lists the documents to be produced, may not meet |
|
the standard. In particular, it is now conceded that in those instances there |
30 |
is insufficient proof that the listed documents are in existence and likely to |
|
be “in the possession, custody or power” of the witness, Mr. Law. |
|
Otherwise, Mr. Quin submits that the documents are identified with |
|
adequate particularity, given the circumstances of the case; that by |
|
inference it must be taken that they exist, given the nature of the |
35 |
defendant’s business, and that they must be in the possession, custody or |
|
power of Mr. Law, as he is the only resident officer of the defendant, |
|
which has its physical headquarters in the Cayman Islands. |
|
In order to preclude “fishing expeditions,” the words “particular |
|
documents specified in the order” as they appear in s.2(4)(b) of the |
40 |
Schedule to the Order are to be strictly construed. The test to be applied in |
|
relation to the production of documents is whether “particular documents” |
|
were specified, that is, individual documents separately described, |
|
although it is permissible to have a compendious description of several |
|
documents, provided that evidence of the actual documents is produced to |
45 |
satisfy me that they do exist or at least have existed (see Re Asbestos Ins. |
|
Coverage Cases (1)). Whether those general standards may be satisfied in |
|
the context of any particular case will necessarily depend on the |
|
circumstances (U.S. v. Carver (8)). |
|
In this case I am urged to consider the nature of the documents being |
5 |
sought on the basis that they are likely to exist as records of the business |
|
and as records of the type of property which it is reasonable to expect the |
|
defendant company would have acquired in the conduct of its business. I |
|
am satisfied that reasonable inferences must be drawn in that regard in the |
|
absence of direct evidence of the existence of such documents—direct |
10 |
evidence which, in all the circumstances, it would be unrealistic to require |
|
the applicant to produce. I am also satisfied that the proper person to |
|
whom the order is to be directed is the witness, Mr. Law, the amenable |
|
officer of the corporate defendant company (see Penn-Texas Corp. v. |
|
Murat Anstalt (5)). |
15 |
In keeping with the general principles earlier outlined, I adopt the |
|
approach that as a matter of comity I should assist the foreign court to the |
|
extent that it is permissible to do so under Cayman law and for those |
|
purposes salvage what I can of the request, provided that in so doing I do |
|
not rework the foreign request into something else altogether. |
20 |
I also take the view that, to the extent it is practicable to do so, the order |
|
of this court should require the witness to give such oral testimony as |
|
might be relevant to the delimited categories of documentation which the |
|
order will require him to produce, and other such oral testimony pursuant |
|
to the letters rogatory as he may give, and which may be relevant to the |
25 |
proceedings still pending in Texas. |
|
It would be quite inappropriate for this court to try to determine in |
|
advance the matters relevant to the issues before the Texas court with a |
|
view more closely to defining the issues on which the witness may give |
|
testimony (Re Asbestos Ins. Coverage Cases (1) ([1985] 1 All E.R. at |
30 |
722)). |
|
I should also note in relation to the documents to be produced that in the |
|
particular circumstances of this case, where the request is in furtherance of |
|
post-judgment discovery for the purposes of tracing assets where it is |
|
reasonable to believe that assets do exist, a certain latitude in the |
35 |
description of the documentation to be produced is not only desirable but |
|
unavoidable. This, within the balance of probabilities that the documents |
|
do exist and are within the ability of the person subpoenaed to produce. |
|
[The court therefore confirmed the ex parte order of October 1st, 1993 |
|
with specified amendments.] |