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)

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
CourtHouse of Lords
JudgeLord Wilberforce, Viscount Dilhorne, Lord Diplock, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, Lord Keith of Kinkel
Judgment Date01 Dec 1977

[1977] UKHL J1201-1

House of Lords

Lord Wilberforce

Viscount Dilhorne

Lord Diplock

Lord Fraser of Tullybelton

Lord Keith of Kinkel

In re Westinghouse Electric Corporation Uranium Contract Litigation MDL Docket 235 (First Appeal)
In re Westinghouse Electric Corporation Uranium Contract Litigation MDL Docket 235 (Second Appeal)
In re Westinghouse Electric Corporation Uranium Contract Litigation MDL Docket 235 (Third Appeal)
In re Westinghouse Electric Corporation Uranium Contract Litigation MDL Docket 235 (Fourth Appeal)
In re Westinghouse Electric Corporation Uranium Contract Litigation MDL Docket 235 (Fifth Appeal)

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
253 cases
  • Rank Film Distributors Ltd v Video Information Centre
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal
    • 15 February 1980
    ...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
    • United Kingdom
    • House of Lords
    • 8 April 1981
    ...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 C
    • Cayman Islands
    • Grand Court
    • 22 August 1994
    ...Cases cited: (1) Ontario Secs. Commn., In re, 199495 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, 198083 CILR Legislation construed: Evidence (Proceedings in Other Jurisdictions) (Ca......
  • Re Imacu Ltd
    • Jersey
    • Royal Court
    • 19 January 1989
    ...1 Q.B. 237; [1961] 3 All E.R. 740; (1961), 105 Sol. Jo. 647, distinguished. (9) Rio Tinto Zinc Corp. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., [1978] 1 All E.R. 434; (1978), 122 Sol. Jo. 32, followed. (10) Royal Aquarium & Summer & Winter Garden Socy. Ltd. v. Parkinson, [1892] 1 Q.B. 431; [1891-......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 firm's commentaries
7 books & journal articles
  • ISSUES CONCERNING COMPLIANCE
    • United Kingdom
    • Journal of Money Laundering Control Nbr. 4-2, April 2000
    • 1 April 2000
    ...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......
  • Self–Monitoring, Self–Policing, Self–Incrimination and Pollution Law
    • United Kingdom
    • The Modern Law Review Nbr. 60-2, March 1997
    • 1 March 1997
    ...Authority vCaltex Refining Co Pty Ltd (1993)178 CLR 477, 492–493.148 Rio Tinto Zinc Corporation vWestinghouse Electric Corporation [1978] AC 547 (House of Lords);though a contrary view was expressed by Lord Denning MR in the Court of Appeal in British SteelCorporation vGranada Television Lt......
  • THE PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF‐INCRIMINATION
    • United Kingdom
    • Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance Nbr. 1-1, January 1992
    • 1 January 1992
    ...and to be com-pelled to condemn themselves out of their own mouths, as in the Star Chamber? REFERENCES 1 Rio Tinto Zinc v Westinghouse[1978] AC 547. On the continuing uncertainty of a company's privilege protecting its employees, see pp. 571, 632 and 652. 2 'Phipson on Evidence', 14th ed. (......
  • Self‐incrimination: Recent Developments
    • United Kingdom
    • Journal of Financial Crime Nbr. 4-1, March 1996
    • 1 March 1996
    ...(8) Triplex Safety Glass Co. Ltd v Lancegaye Safety Glass (1934) Ltd [1939] 2 KB 395, Rio Tinto Zinc Corp. v Westinghouse Electric Corp. [1978] AC 547. (9) [1981] AC 1096 at 1127. (10) Rank Film Distributors Ltd v Video Information Centre [1982] AC 380. (11) s. 72 Supreme Court Act, 1981. (......
  • Request a trial to view additional results