Deutsche Rückversicherung A.G. v Walbrook Insurance Company Ltd

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
CourtQueen's Bench Division
Judgment Date21 Apr 1994

Queen's Bench Division

Before Mr Justice Phillips

Deutsche Ruckversichering Aktiengesellschaft
and
Walbrook Insurance Co Ltd and Others Group Josi Reinsurance Co SA v Same

Practice - interlocutory injunction - intermediate sources of information

Secondary evidence in affidavits

For the purposes of obtaining an interlocutory injunction a deponent might put before the court facts which he was not, of his own knowledge, able to prove and he need not be required at that stage to identify as the source of his information or belief an original source of evidence which would be admissible at trial.

Mr Justice Phillips so held in the Queen's Bench Division when refusing the application of the defendants in both actions, Walbrook Insurance Co Ltd and 14 others, to have struck out parts of affidavits submitted by the plaintiffs, Deutsche Ruckversichering Aktiengesellschaft and Group Josi Reinsurance Co SA, tendered in support of applications for interlocutory injunctions against the defendants to prevent the assigning, charging, presentation or drawing upon letters of credit granted by the plaintiffs to certain of the defendants.

Mr Andrew Bartlett, QC and Miss Marion Egan for the plaintiffs; Mr Stewart Boyd, QC and Mr David Joseph for the defendants.

MR JUSTICE PHILLIPS said that the plaintiffs were reinsurers and the defendants reinsured who held letters of credit granted them by the plaintiffs who, on discovery of alleged fraud, sought to prevent the defendants drawing upon letters of credit.

The affidavits in support of the reinsurers' claims to interlocutory relief relied largely upon the contents of a Department of Trade and Industry report of investigations under section 432(2) of the Companies Act 1985 concerning certain activities of certain defendants.

By their cross-summons, the defendants sought to strike out of the affidavits those parts that referred to the DTI report, together with the report exhibited to the affidavits.

Order 41, rule 6 of the Rules of the Supreme Court provided: "The court may order to be struck out of any affidavit any matter which is scandalous, irrelevant or otherwise oppressive."

Mr Boyd submitted that the rule did not permit the deponent to rely upon the DTI report as the source of his information and belief.

The rule which did allow that was Order 41, rule 5 which provided: "(2) An affidavit sworn for the purpose of being used in interlocutory proceedings may contain statements of information or belief with...

To continue reading

Request your trial
63 cases
1 books & journal articles
  • ISSUES CONCERNING COMPLIANCE
    • United Kingdom
    • Journal of Money Laundering Control Nbr. 4-2, April 2000
    • 1 April 2000
    ...probably goes to the weight (rather than the admissibility) of the evidence: Deutsche Ruckversicherung AG ν Walbrook Insurance Co. Ltd [1995] 1 WLR 1017, 1025, Compagnie Noga d'Exportation et d'lmporta-tion SA ν Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (Rix J, 27th July, 1999), transcrip......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT