Rio Tinto Zinc Corporation v Westinghouse Electric Corporation; Re Westinghouse Electric Corporation Uranium Contract Litigation M.D.L. Docket No. 235 (No. 1) and (No. 2)
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Lord Wilberforce,Viscount Dilhorne,Lord Diplock,Lord Fraser of Tullybelton,Lord Keith of Kinkel |
| Judgment Date | 01 December 1977 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1977] UKHL J1201-1 |
| Date | 01 December 1977 |
| Court | House of Lords |
[1977] UKHL J1201-1
Lord Wilberforce
Viscount Dilhorne
Lord Diplock
Lord Fraser of Tullybelton
Lord Keith of Kinkel
House of Lords
Upon Report from the Appellate Committee, to whom was referred the Cause In re Westinghouse Electric Corporation Uranium Contract Litigation MDL Docket 235 (First Appeal), That the Committee had heard Counsel, as well on Monday the 17th, as on Tuesday the 18th, Wednesday the 19th, Thursday the 20th, Monday the 24th, Tuesday the 25th, Wednesday the 26th, Thursday the 27th, and Monday the 31st, days of October last, upon the Petition and Appeal of Peter Daniel of Old Keysford, Treemans Lane, Horsted Keynes, Sussex, Jean Loup Dherse of 8 Elm Place, London, S.W.7, The Rt. Hon. The Lord Shackleton of 47a Lower Belgrave Street, London, S.W.1, Sir Ronald Mark Cunliffe Turner of 3 The Grove, Highgate, London, N.6, Roy William Wright of Cobbers, Forest Row, Sussex, the Rio Tinto-Zinc Corporation Limited of 6 St. James's Square, London, SW1Y 4LD, praying, That the matter of the Order set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely an Order of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal of the 26th of May 1977, so far as therein stated to be appealed against, might be reviewed before Her Majesty the Queen, in Her Court of Parliament, and that the said Order, so far as aforesaid, might be reversed, varied or altered, or that the Petitioners might have such other relief in the premises as to Her Majesty the Queen in Her Court of Parliament, might seem meet; as also upon the Case of Westinghouse Electric Corporation, lodged in answer to the said Appeal; and due consideration had this day of what was offered on either side in this Cause:
It is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in the Court of Parliament of Her Majesty the Queen assembled, That the said Order of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal of the 26th day of May 1977, in part complained of in the said Appeal, be, and the same is hereby, Discharged with effect from the 18th day of July 1977 so far as regards the Letter Rogatory issued by the United States District Court for the Eastern District, Richmond Division: And it is further Ordered, That the Order of Master Creightmore in Chambers of the 28th day of October 1976 directed to Peter Daniel, Jean Loup Dherse, the Rt. Hon. The Lord Shackleton, Sir Ronald Mark Cunliffe Turner, Roy William Wright and the Rio Tinto-Zinc Corporation Limited and giving effect to the said Letter Rogatory be, and the same is hereby, Discharged with effect from the 18th day of July 1977: And it is further Ordered, That Westinghouse Electric Corporation do pay, or cause to be paid, to the said Appellants the Costs incurred by them in respect of the said Appeal to this House, and also the Costs incurred by them in the Court of Appeal and in this House in their application for a stay of the said Order of the Court of Appeal of the 26th day of May 1977, the amount of the Costs incurred in this House to be certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments: And it is further Ordered, That the Orders for Costs made by the Courts below be, and the same are hereby, Affirmed: And it is also further Ordered, That the Cause be, and the same is hereby, remitted back to the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice, to do therein as shall be just and consistent with this Judgment.
Upon Report from the Appellate Committee, to whom was referred the Cause In re Westinghouse Electric Corporation Uranium Contract Litigation MDL Docket 235 (Second Appeal), That the Committee had heard Counsel as well on Monday the 17th, as on Tuesday the 18th, Wednesday the 19th, Thursday the 20th, Monday the 24th, Tuesday the 25th, Wednesday the 26th, Thursday the 27th, and Monday the 31st, days of October last, upon the Petition and Appeal of Andrew Edward Buxton of 36 Burnsall Street, London, S.W.3, Kenneth E. Bayliss of 80 St. Johns Road, Sevenoaks, Kent, RTZ Services Limited of 6 St. James's Square, London, SW1Y 4LD, praying, That the matter of the Order set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely, an Order of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal of the 26th of May 1977, so far as therein stated to be appealed against, might be reviewed before Her Majesty the Queen, in Her Court of Parliament, and that the said Order, so far as aforesaid, might be reversed, varied or altered, or that the Petitioners might have such other relief in the premises as to Her Majesty the Queen in Her Court of Parliament, might seem meet; as also upon the Case of Westinghouse Electric Corporation, lodged in answer to the said Appeal; and due consideration had this day of what was offered on either side in this Cause:
It is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in the Court of Parliament of Her Majesty the Queen assembled, That the said Order of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal of the 26th day of May 1977, in part complained of in the said Appeal, be, and the same is hereby. Discharged with effect from the 18th day of July 1977 so far as regards the Letter Rogatory issued by the United States District Court for the Eastern District, Richmond Division: And it is further Ordered, That the Order of Master Creightmore in Chambers of the 28th day of October 1976 directed to Andrew Edward Buxton, Kenneth E. Bayliss and RTZ Services Limited and giving effect to the said Letter Rogatory be, and the same is hereby. Discharged with effect from the 18th day of July 1977: And it is further Ordered, That Westinghouse Electric Corporation do pay, or cause to be paid, to the said Appellants the Costs incurred by them in respect of the said Appeal to this House, and also the Costs incurred by them in the Court of Appeal and in this House in their application for a stay of the said Order of the Court of Appeal of the 26th day of May 1977, the amount of the Costs incurred in this House to be certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments: And it is further Ordered, That the Orders for Costs made by the Courts below be, and the same are hereby, Affirmed: And it is also further Ordered, That the Cause be, and the same is hereby, remitted back to the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice, to do therein as shall be just and consistent with this Judgment.
Upon Report from the Appellate Committee, to whom was referred the Cause In re Westinghouse Electric Corporation Uranium Contract Litigation MDL Docket 235 (Third Appeal), That the Committee had heard Counsel, as well on Monday the 17th as on Tuesday the 18th, Wednesday the 19th, Thursday the 20th, Monday the 24th, Tuesday the 25th, Wednesday the 26th, Thursday the 27th, and Monday the 31st, days of October last, upon the Petition and Appeal of Westinghouse Electric Corporation of Gateway Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222, United States of America, praying, That the matter of the Order set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely, an Order of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal of the 26th of May 1977, so far as therein stated to be appealed against, might be reviewed before Her Majesty the Queen, in Her Court of Parliament, and that the said Order, so far as aforesaid, might be reversed, varied or altered, or that the Petitioners might have such other relief in the premises as to Her Majesty the Queen in Her Court of Parliament, might seem meet; as also upon the Case of Peter Daniel, Jean Loup Dherse. the Rt. Hon. The Lord Shackleton, Sir Ronald Mark Cunliffe Turner, Roy William Wright and the Rio Tinto-Zinc Corporation Limited, lodged in answer to the said Appeal; and due consideration had this day of what was offered on either side in this Cause:
It is Ordered and Adjudged, by the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in the Court of Parliament of Her Majesty the Queen assembled. That the said Order of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal of the 26th day of May 1977, in part complained of in the said Appeal, be, and the same is hereby Affirmed, except so far as it relates to the Letter Rogatory, and that the said Petition and Appeal be, and the same is hereby, dismissed this House: And it is further Ordered, That the Appellants do pay, or cause to be paid, to the said Respondents the Costs incurred by them in respect of the said Appeal, the amount thereof to be certified by the Clerk of the Parliaments.
Upon Report from the Appellate Committee, to whom was referred the Cause In re Westinghouse Electric Corporation Uranium Contract Litigation MDL Docket 235 (Fourth Appeal), That the Committee had heard Counsel, As well on Monday the 17th, as on Tuesday the 18th, Wednesday the 19th, Thursday the 20th, Monday the 24th, Tuesday the 25th, Wednesday the 26th, Thursday the 27th, and Monday the 31st, days of October last, upon the Petition and Appeal of Westinghouse Electric Corporation of Gateway Center, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222, United States of America, praying, That the matter of the Order set forth in the Schedule thereto, namely, an Order of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal of the 26th of May 1977, so far as therein stated to be appealed against, might be reviewed before Her Majesty the Queen, in Her Court of Parliament, and that the said Order, so far as aforesaid, might be reversed, varied or altered, or that the Petitioners might have such other relief in the premises as to Her Majesty the Queen in Her Court of Parliament, might seem meet; as also upon the Case of Andrew Edward Buxton, Kenneth E. Bayliss and RTZ Services Limited, lodged in answer to the said Appeal; and due...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Re C
...Cases cited: (1) Ontario Secs. Commn., In re, 1994–95 CILR 131, distinguished. (2) Rio Tinto Zinc Corp. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., [1978] A.C. 547; [1978] 1 All E.R. 434, distinguished. (3) U.S. v. Carver, 1980–83 CILR 297. Legislation construed: Evidence (Proceedings in Other Jurisdictio......
-
Rank Film Distributors Ltd v Video Information Centre
...to me only realistic to accept – applying the tests suggested by Lord Denning M. R. in In re Westinghouse Uranium Contract (1978) Appeal Cases 547 at page 574 – that there is a real and appreciable risk, as distinct from a remote or insubstantial risk, of proceedings being taken against th......
-
Rank Film Distributors Ltd v Video Information Centre
...Triplex Safety Glass Company Limited v. Lancegaye Safety Glass Limited [1939] 2 K.B. 395 and in the Westinghouse Uranium Contract case [1978] A.C. 547. The appellants do not dispute the existence of a privilege against compulsory self-incrimination by discovery or by answering interrogato......
-
Re Lancelot Investors Fund
...[2008] BCC 49; [2007] 2 BCLC 614; [2007] EWHC 117 (Ch), applied. (7) Rio Tinto Zinc Corp. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp.UNKELRUNK, [1977] 3 All E.R. 703; on appeal, [1978] A.C. 547; [1978] 1 All E.R. 434; sub nom. Westinghouse Elec. Corp. Uranium Contact Litigation M.D.L. Docket 235, [1978] 1 ......
-
Depositions Discovery And Obtaining Evidence In England For Use In EU Countries
...proper to bear in mind the stage in the Kansas proceedings at which the order is sought: as Lord Fraser said in the Westinghouse case (at [1978] AC 547, 'the mere fact that letters rogatory have been issued at the pre-trial discovery stage does not mean that they are not seeking for evidenc......
-
Guide To Obtaining Evidence In England For Use In Proceedings In The United States Of America
...proper to bear in mind the stage in the Kansas proceedings at which the order is sought: as Lord Fraser said in the Westinghouse case (at [1978] AC 547, the mere fact that letters rogatory have been issued at the pre-trial discovery stage does not mean that they are not seeking for evidence......
-
English High Court Clarifies The Position On English Courts Assisting In Obtaining Evidence For Use In Foreign Court Proceedings
...the associated cost implications. Footnotes [2018] EWHC 1201 (QB) Rio Tinto Zinc Corporation v British Westinghouse Electric Corporation [1978] AC 547 Simon J in CH (Ireland) Inc v Credit Suisse Canada [2004] EWHC 626 (QB) [2003] EWHC 3001 (QB) MicroTechnologies LLC v Autonomy Inc [2016] EW......
-
Fishing in Bermuda - Letters of Request from the Family Division
...relief claims in the English Family Court. The House of Lords in Rio Tinto Zinc Corporation v. Westinghouse Electric Corporation [1978] AC 547, limited document production requests in ordinary litigation to documents which can be proved to exist. In ordinary litigation a document production......
-
United Kingdom
...arbitral proceedings as it has for the purposes of and in relation to legal 10 . See Rio Tinto Zinc Corp. v. Westinghouse Electric Corp . [1978] AC 547 (HL) 560 (appeal taken from Eng.); Seyfang v. G.D. Searle & Co. [1973] QB 148 (EWHC) at 152 (Eng.); WHITE BOOK, supra note 3 , at n. 34.21.......
-
Antitrust and International Commerce
...538. Id. at 1009 (quoting In re Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litig., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 151222, at *61 (N.D. Cal. 2014)). 539. [1978] 2 W.L.R. 81 (H.L. 1977). 540. Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gulf Can. Ltd., [1980] 2 S.C.R. 39, 1980-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) ¶ 63,285 (Can.); cf. In re Westinghouse El......
-
Establishing Subject Matter Jurisdiction Under the FSIA
...of obtaining pre-trial discovery of documents as known in Common Law countries.”); Rio Tinto Zinc Corp. v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., [1978] A.C. 547, 619 (U.K.H.L.) (stating that “a strict attitude is to be taken by English courts in giving efect to foreign requests for the production of......
-
ISSUES CONCERNING COMPLIANCE
...AG ν Aiyela and Others [1994] QB 366, at 377 (post-judgment freezing injunction and disclosure order). (120) (1812) 34 ER 502. (121) [1978] AC 547. (122) [1991] 2 QB 310. (123) [1998] 3 All ER 74. (124) Jackson ν Gamble [1983] 1 VR 552. (125) See Rank Film Distributors Ltd ν Video Informati......