header-logo header-logo

13 July 2012
Issue: 7522 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Evidence

R (on the application of Omar and others) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2012] EWHC 1737 (Admin), [2012] All ER (D) 06 (Jul)

The court could not order the provision of evidence for proceedings in overseas courts other than through the statutory regime provided by the Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003. The legislative history of the statutory regime had made clear that the scheme for compelling evidence for use outside the jurisdiction was exclusively statutory. Therefore, the legislation was necessary to confer on the courts power to compel the giving of evidence to be used in overseas proceedings and, accordingly, the jurisdiction had always been exclusively statutory. The result was that the power of the courts to use Norwich Pharmacal proceedings had to be developed within the confines of the existence of the statutory regime through which evidence in such proceedings overseas had to be obtained. Norwich Pharmacal proceedings were not ousted, but where proceedings were brought to obtain evidence, the court as a matter of principle ought to decline to make orders for

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll