Sabretech Inc. v Shannon Aerospace Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 01 July 1999
• Date: 01 July 1999
• Docket Number: [1999 No. 2 F.T.E.]
• Court: High Court

Sabretech Inc. v. Shannon Aerospace Ltd.

In re an air crash in the Florida Everglades on the 11th May, 1996, and in the matter of civil proceedings now pending before the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Case No. 96-1542-CIV-Davis and twelve consolidated cases;Sabretech Inc.

Applicant

and

Shannon Aerospace Limited

Respondent

[1999 No. 2 F.T.E.]

High Court

Evidence - Whether request for documents ancillary to oral testimony - Foreign Tribunals Evidence Act, 1856 (19 & 20 Vict., c. 113), s. 1.

Section 1 of the Foreign Tribunals Evidence Act, 1856, provides:-

"Where, upon an application for this purpose, it is made to appear to any court or judge having authority under this Act that any court or tribunal of competent jurisdiction in a foreign country, before which any civil or commercial matter is pending, is desirous of obtaining the testimony in relation to such matter of any witness or witnesses within the jurisdiction of such first-mentioned court, or of the court to which such judge belongs, or of such judge, it shall be lawful for such court or judge to order the examination upon oath, upon interrogatories or otherwise, before any person or persons named in such order, of such witness or witnesses accordingly; …"

The relatives of those killed in a plane crash in the United States took proceedings against,inter alia, the applicant herein. The applicant wished to obtain the evidence of Mr. K., the records custodian of the respondent, and all relevant documentation in relation to the matter. Mr. K. deposed on affidavit that he had no oral evidence to offer in relation to the matters at issue. This was not controverted by the applicant.

The respondent applied to have anex parte order that Mr. K. appear before an examiner for cross-examination set aside and argued that the request from the United States court did not come within s.1 of the Foreign Tribunals Evidence Act, 1856.

Held by the High Court (McCracken J.), in setting aside the order, that there was no power under s.1 of the Foreign Tribunals Evidence Act, 1856, to order discovery of documents or to order the taking of evidence which in reality solely amounted to discovery of documents.

Eccles & Co. v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company [1912] 1 K.B. 135;Radio Corporation of America v. Rauland Corporation[1956] 1 Q.B. 618 andAmerican Express Warehousing v. Doe and others[1967] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 222 followed.

Cases mentioned in this report:-

American Express Warehousing v. Doe and others [1967] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 222.

Eccles & Co. v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company [1912] 1 K.B. 135; 28 T.L.R. 67.

Radio Corporation of America v. Rauland Corporation [1956] 1 Q.B. 618; [1956] 2 W.L.R. 612; [1956] 1 All E.R. 549.

Motion on notice.

The facts have been summarised in the headnote and are fully set out in the judgment of McCracken J.,infra.

By an order madeex parte by the High Court (McCracken J.) on the 1st February, 1999, it was ordered pursuant to s.1 of the Foreign Tribunals Evidence Act, 1856, that the records custodian of the respondent do appear before an examiner to be examined on oath or affirmation on certain matters set forward in a letter of request issued by the Chief United States District Judge for the Southern District of Florida on the 22nd September, 1998, and further ordered that the said person...