UK: Letters of Request Under the Hague Evidence Convention Obtaining Evidence in England in Aid of US Proceedings Introduction

Last Updated: 5 August 2002
Article by Barry Donnelly

Despite the clear message of the English Court to US litigants in the cases of State of Minnesota v. Philip Morris [1998] I.L.Pr.170 and First American Corp. v. Zayed [1999] 1 WLR 1154, that a careful distinction must be drawn between "discovery" and "evidence" when seeking to enforce US letters of request in England against third parties, another recent high profile and expensive failure to appreciate the distinction, shows that the message continues to go unheeded.

To quote the Court of Appeal in Refco & Another v. Credit Suisse First Boston and Standard Bank ("the Banks") [2001] EWCA Civ 1733, in which this firm represented the Banks:

"Once again time and money is being spent in the English Courts over Letters Rogatory... [which] would be unnecessary, if those seeking the request from the United States Court appreciated the differences between the attitude of the United States Court to the making of "discovery" orders against non-parties, and the attitude of the English Court to the making of such orders."

When the United Kingdom became a party to the Hague Evidence Convention, it entered a reservation to Article 23 which became enshrined in the Evidence (Proceedings in Other Jurisdictions) Act 1975 ("the 1975 Act"), making it clear that pre-trial discovery against non-parties was something which the English Court would not provide because there was no equivalent under English procedural law. Therefore, the English Court will not assist where a request is for the purposes of discovery, in the nature of a roving enquiry by which a party seeks to fish for material which might lead to admissible evidence at trial, rather than for evidence at trial which is admissible and relevant to issues in the foreign proceedings.

The Facts

Companies named Genira and Binzer were Plaintiffs in an action in the Supreme Court of the State of New York against two Refco companies, with which the Plaintiffs had engaged in bond and equity securities transactions over an 18 month period. The Plaintiffs had been introduced to Refco by a broker in London, who had told the Plaintiffs that his firm would be compensated "in accordance with industry custom and practice", being a small fraction of the spread between the bid and ask price for each trade. Difficult market conditions emerged and it was necessary for Refco to liquidate the Plaintiffs' trades, as a result of which the Plaintiffs sued for breach of contract. In the course of these proceedings, the Plaintiffs deposed the broker in New York, during which it became apparent that Refco appeared to have entered into certain commission or profit sharing arrangements with the broker.

As a result, the Plaintiffs abandoned their contractual claims and obtained leave to plead claims in fraud instead. In essence, they alleged that the sharing arrangements between Refco and the broker were improper and that the payments made to the broker were illegal commissions or kick backs in order to induce the broker to bring customers to Refco and to trade through Refco. In answer, Refco wished to assert that the type of fee arrangement which it had with the broker, was in accordance with industry custom and practice and suggested that evidence of the Banks, which also had trading relationships with the Plaintiffs through the broker, would be evidence of the relevant industry standards.

The request made by the US Court, at the behest of Refco, to the English Court, described the claim being made against Refco and asserted that it was critical to Refco's defence that it be permitted to inspect the records of the Banks relating to transactions and the amount and manner of payments by the Banks. On that basis, Counsel for Refco wished to take oral testimony from the Banks (no individuals were named) on topics set out in various exhibits to the request. There was no averment that Refco would be severely prejudiced if it could not depose the Banks. It was the Banks' documents and records which were to be the subject of oral depositions. As regards documents themselves, it was simply asserted that Counsel for Refco sought production from the Banks of documents set out in various exhibits.

Certain exhibits to the request set out topics on which Refco desired to examine the Banks. Other exhibits set out the documents requested in the most compendious of forms. The requests were also said to be "continuous in nature" and the Banks, so it was asserted, were to be bound to serve "supplemental documents up to the time of the trial". In the case of each bank there were approximately 40 categories of documents, commencing with words such as "all documents constituting…".

Initially, the English Court was not prepared to make any Order in relation to the documents on the basis that the request was "too wide". It was prepared to make an Order for the oral examination of witnesses, provided persons were identified to give evidence on behalf of the Banks. Before any Order of the English Court was drawn up, Refco sought to amend the draft of the Order in the English Court by reducing the 40 or so categories of documents to 4 compendious categories.

Following service of the Order upon the Banks, the Banks were advised to make an application to set aside the Order. In setting aside the Order, the Judge gave the following reasons:

  • the New York proceedings were still at the stage of discovery;
  • the New York parties were engaged on a roving commission designed to elicit information which might lead to evidence;
  • the New York parties were engaged on a straightforward US discovery exercise;
  • the purpose of the request was a fishing expedition and the English Court had no jurisdiction to give effect to it;
  • the request for documents was not one for "particular documents specified" but was a general request for classes of documents in contravention of the 1975 Act;
  • it was not possible to identify actual as opposed to conjectural documents;
  • the Order should have made provision for the payment in advance of the Banks' costs of legal representation and searching for documents.

However, the Judge did find (although "not without hesitation") that the substitution of the shorter schedule of four categories of documents for the original 40, was a permissible re-writing of the request as a "blue-pencil" exercise, which did not result in a request which differed in substance from the original. The Banks had argued that in order to reduce the categories of documents, Refco should have returned to the US Court to seek a revised request.

The principles

In the Refco case, the Court of Appeal reiterated some fundamental principles from the 1975 Act and surrounding case law:

  • the first principle, which reflects judicial and international comity, is as stated by Lord Denning in Rio Tinto Zinc Corporation v. Westinghouse Electric Corp. [1978] AC 547 at 560;

"It is our duty and our pleasure to do all we can to assist [the foreign court], just as we would expect the United States court to help us in like circumstances".

  • the jurisdiction to make the Order is statutory. Such an order "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 proceedings" in the English Court (section 2(3)). It is that provision which precludes the English Court from making orders for the taking of oral depositions from a non-party simply as part of the discovery exercise which takes place under the United States procedure;
  • the position is even more clear in relation to documents. Section 2(4) states that an order shall not require a person to produce any documents other than particular documents specified in the Order as being documents which appear to the Court making the Order to be, or to be likely to be, in his possession, custody or power;
  • the words in section 2(4) have been strictly construed. For example, whilst documents may be compendiously described, that is only where exact documents are clearly indicated and the documents are shown to exist or to have existed, rather than being conjectural documents (see In re Asbestos Insurance Coverage Cases [1985] 1 WLR 331). Furthermore, it has been construed so as not to allow an Order to be made which would involve altering the letter of request other than by the operation of striking out words in the letter of request with a blue pencil (RTZ v. Westinghouse).
  • the fact that letters of request may have been issued for the purpose of obtaining discovery or pre-trial depositions which fall foul of the above, does not mean that the English Court has no jurisdiction whatsoever to attempt to give effect to the requests (see Golden Eagle Refinery v. Associated International Insurance (unreported) (19 February 1998)). The Court, so far as documents are concerned can, by application of the "blue pencil", identify particular documents, and so far as oral testimony is concerned make it subject to terms that, for example: (1) "the examination of witnesses shall be for the purpose only of eliciting and recording testimony appropriate to be given at trial"; and (2) "that no question may be asked of the witness which in the opinion of the examiner is not a question of the nature that could properly be asked by Counsel examining a witness-in-chief at a trial before the [English] Court". Those were the terms on the basis of which the Court in the Golden Eagle case upheld the Orders for the examination of witnesses;
  • in the face of a statement in a letter of request that a certain person is a necessary witness for the applicant, the Court should not be astute to examine the issues in the action and the circumstances of the case with excessive particularity for the purpose of determining in advance whether the evidence of that person will be relevant and admissible (see RTZ v. Westinghouse at 654);

On Refco's application for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal, the Banks submitted that Refco's approach was fundamentally flawed from the moment the notion of a request was conceived. The idea was plainly one to obtain general discovery from third parties and to depose relevant individuals from those third parties as part of that process. Whilst that may be commonplace in US proceedings, it is not so in English proceedings. Refco never properly addressed the 1975 Act, the relevant restrictive provisions of the Act or the interpretations in English case law. Although attempts were made to redefine the material required which led to the amended Order in England, the New York Court was not involved at any stage in that part of the process. The only request from the New York Court remained a request premised on the ability of a party to obtain US style general discovery from a third party and to depose individuals as part of that process. An English court, the Banks submitted, simply had no jurisdiction to accede to such a request.

The decision of the Court of Appeal

Although the Court of Appeal heard full argument from both parties, it ultimately refused Refco permission to appeal, thereby bringing the matter to an end once and for all. In essence, the Court of Appeal gave the following reasons for refusing permission:

(1) the letter of request as originally issued, was undoubtedly for pre-trial discovery, both so far as documents and taking depositions from the witnesses were concerned;

(2) it was extremely doubtful whether the attempt by Refco to salvage the position, so far as documents were concerned, by requesting a different shorter schedule of documents, was permissible. An application to the Court to, in effect, substitute such a compendious schedule for the extensive exhibits by operation of a blue-pencil technique, would seem to be extremely difficult. The Court of Appeal was quite unconvinced by Refco's attempts to demonstrate that upon scrutiny of the 40 categories of documents exhibited to the request, the Court could somehow spell out a request for the four particular classes of documents subsequently described in the new schedule to the Order of the English Court;

(3) in any event, the documents in the new schedule simply could not be described as "particular documents". The schedule did not describe documents which actually existed, but rather conjectural documents. The language used in the schedules such as "any" or "all", as opposed to "the" in respect of the documents, illustrated the point;

(4) it would be quite impossible to attempt a further blue-pencil exercise to try and identify exact documents, because there was no evidence to identify particular documents as existing, and indeed there was no suggestion that the English Court should do so;

(5) as for oral depositions, the impression given by the letter of request was that it was really documents which Refco were seeking from the Banks, and what was being sought by way of examination in reality related to what the documents might show. The fact that witnesses from the Banks were not originally identified, supported the conclusion that it was not first hand evidence of particular witnesses which was in contemplation. In any event, if no Order for the production of documents could be made, the primary basis on which Refco desired and persuaded the New York Court to have witnesses from the Banks provide a deposition (i.e. to be examined about documents), had disappeared;

(6) it was extremely doubtful whether any evidence in relation to fee arrangements between the Banks and the broker, was relevant or might be admissible in the US proceedings. Matters such as "industry standards" should be the subject of expert evidence. Whilst the Banks could establish what their fee arrangements were, that would be no better evidence of industry standards than Refco's own arrangements. It appeared to the Court of Appeal from an expert opinion provided on behalf of the Banks by New York attorney, John Fellas of Messrs Hughes Hubbard & Reed, that this was a view which the New York Court could well take. In any event, the request was in very broad terms and it was not the function of the English Court to redraft letters of request where there are serious doubts about the admissibility of the "evidence". That is particularly so where it did not appear that the New York Court had considered precisely what evidence was being sought for the trial or its likely weight if it were obtained.

Conclusion

The Refco case highlights the need to involve overseas lawyers in the jurisdiction to which a request is to be sent, in the drafting of the request itself and not after the request has been made. The extensive exhibits to the request in the Refco case, themselves indicated a great deal of expense in the preparation of the request which could have been saved or been more productive, had English lawyers been involved at the outset. Instead, in addition to the cost of preparation of the request, Refco was left to pay the costs of the Banks.

This briefing note is intended to raise your awareness of certain issues (as at July 2002) under the laws of England and Wales, and is not intended to be comprehensive or a substitute for proper advice which should always be taken for particular queries.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.

Disclaimer

Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.

Registration

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.

Cookies

A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.

Links

This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.

Mail-A-Friend

If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.

Security

This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.