ARTICLE
20 December 2019

No Pharmacal Orders When There Is An Infringement Of The "Mere Witness" Rule.

SP
Soteris Pittas & Co LLC

Contributor

Soteris Pittas & Co LLC logo
SOTERIS PITTAS & CO LLC is a boutique law firm, in size only, focusing on the areas of law related to business activity and dedicated to providing its clients with outstanding, highly personalized, legal representation
In the English case AXA EQUITY & LAW LIFE –V- NATIONAL WESTMINISTER BANK (1998) CHC 117 (which has been adopted and followed by Cypriot ...
Cyprus Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

In the English case AXA EQUITY & LAW LIFE –V- NATIONAL WESTMINISTER BANK (1998) CHC 117 (which has been adopted and followed by Cypriot Courts), the Court refused disclosure on the basis that the claimant had already made out a prima facie case against the accountancy firm they were suing, and did not require Norwich Pharmacal disclosure to determine whether a case could be brought against them. The application therefore infringed the "mere witness rule" as the banks were compellable witness.

In the ARAB MONETARY FUND –V- HASHIM (No. 5) 2 ALL ER 911 (which has been also adopted and followed by Cyprus Courts), has been inter alia held, that the Norwich Pharmacal case in no authority for imposing upon "mixed up" third parties a general obligation to give discovery of information, when the identity of the defendant wrongdoers is already known.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More