Beck v Value Capital Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1974 |
| Year | 1974 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
Practice - Document - Court's jurisdiction to retain - Material document coming into court's possession - Not exhibited to affidavit or identified - Document stated to be on loan - Court's jurisdiction to retain document until judgment -
During the hearing of two motions by the defendants PRL, the plaintiffs asked the court to retain in its custody a document which purported to be the original of an agreement indirectly affecting the control of PRL. An alleged photostatic copy of the agreement, exhibited to an affidavit sworn on behalf of PRL, stated that certain other documents were attached thereto, but in fact no other documents were so attached. The “original” which had been handed in for the court's inspection, but which was neither exhibited to any affidavit nor identified by any witness, had other documents stapled to it, and it was suggested by the plaintiffs that they might have been tampered with or altered since the date of execution of the agreement. PRL objected to the court's retaining the document with its annexures, on the grounds that they did not wish at that stage of the proceedings to make the documents part of their evidence and secondly, that the documents were on loan to them on terms which precluded their being left in the custody of the court unless or until it was known for certain whether PRL wished to rely upon them. Subsequently a pro forma summons was issued in order to comply with the requirements of R.S.C., Ord. 29, r. 2: —
Held, that the court had an inherent jurisdiction to take charge of a document material to the case once it had come into the court's possession, if the judge thought it necessary to do so for the purpose of justice, notwithstanding the existence of possible rights of third parties but not in blind disregard of such right; that the order would also be made under R.S.C., Ord. 29, r. 2, under which the court also had jurisdiction to make such an order, the document being “property … as to which any question may arise.”
The following case is referred to in the first judgment:
Saxton, decd., In re [
No additional cases were cited in argument.
SUMMONS
In an action commenced by writ dated April 6, 1973, by Mr. Kuno Beck and Dr. Rolf Fetscher, as original plaintiffs, the plaintiffs (who by then included Global Natural Resources Properties Ltd.) obtained, on motion, an interlocutory order from Brightman J., dated April 13, 1973, which prevented the transfer of large sums of money held by three defendant banks, namely, David Samuel Trust Ltd., Societe Generale Pour Favoriser le Developpement du Commerce et de L'Industrie en France S.A., and National Westminster Bank Ltd. either in the name of or directly or indirectly to the order of the defendants, Property Resources Ltd., hereinafter referred to as PRL. In January 1974, Global Natural Resources Properties Ltd. ceased to be a plaintiff and on February 1, 1974, Investment Properties International Ltd., who had previously been the first defendants, became the third plaintiffs in the action.
By two motions, dated respectively July 2, 1973, and January 29, 1974, PRL sought to discharge the order made by Brightman J. During the hearing of those motions the plaintiffs asked the court to retain in its custody a document purporting to be the original of an agreement indirectly affecting the control of PRL, made between Global Financial Ltd. and Taino Investments Ltd. and dated September 11, 1973. What purported to be a photostatic copy of the agreement was exhibited to an affidavit sworn on behalf of PRL by one, Vendal Percival Munnings. The purported original had certain other documents annexed to it which the plaintiffs suggested might have been tampered with or altered since the date of execution of the agreement, whereas the alleged copy thus exhibited to the affidavit — contrary to what was stated in the copy — had no other documents annexed to it. The purported original had been handed in for the court's inspection but was not exhibited to any affidavit and was not identified by any witness. PRL objected to the court's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Bray v F Hoffman-La Roche Ltd
-
NML Capital Ltd v Republic of Argentina
...in respect of which leave could not, or would not, have been given to serve out: Waterhouse v Reid [1938] 1 KB 743, 747, 749; Beck v Value Capital Ltd (No 2) [1975] 1 WLR 6, 15; Bastone & Firminger Ltd v Nasima Enterprises (Nigeria) Ltd [1996] CLC 1902, 1907; Donohue v Armco Inc [2001] ......
-
Secretary For Justice v Ftcw And Others
...QC (appearing for the Husband) and Mr Thomas SC (for STL), their challenges focused on the Judge’s reliance on Beck v Value Capital [1974] 3 All ER 437 to come to that 12. Before the hearing of the appeal, this court referred counsel to the recent authority of R (Guardian News and Media Ltd......
-
Secretary For Justice v Ftcw And Others
...QC (appearing for the Husband) and Mr Thomas SC (for STL), their challenges focused on the Judge’s reliance on Beck v Value Capital [1974] 3 All ER 437 to come to that 12. Before the hearing of the appeal, this court referred counsel to the recent authority of R (Guardian News and Media Ltd......