South Staffordshire Tramways Company v Ebbsmith
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1895 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
Practice - Discovery - Inspection of Bankers' Books - Privilege - Entries not relevant - Account of person not party to Action -
The jurisdiction to order inspection of entries in bankers' books under s. 7 of the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1879, ought to be exercised in conformity with the general law as to discovery, by which a party to an action is entitled to refuse discovery of entries which he swears to be irrelevant.
Therefore, where the defendant in an action stated on affidavit that entries in his banking account were irrelevant to the matters in dispute:—
Held, that an order for inspection of those entries before the trial ought not to be made under the above-mentioned Act.
Semble, inspection of entries in a banker's books relating to an account kept in the name of a person not a party to the action can be ordered under the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1879, where the Court is satisfied that those entries will be admissible in evidence against a party to the action at the trial; but such an order ought not to be made without notice to such person, nor then unless very strong grounds are shewn for thinking that there are entries in the account which are material to the case of the party asking for inspection.
APPEAL from an order of Hawkins J. at chambers, which reversed an order of a master giving the plaintiffs leave to inspect entries in bankers' books under the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1879, s. 7.
The plaintiffs were a tramway company incorporated by Act of Parliament, which under the provisions of the Act took over the property and rights of a previously existing company called the South Staffordshire and Birmingham District Steam Tramways Company, Limited. The plaintiffs by their statement of claim alleged that the defendant had been a promoter of and solicitor to the last-mentioned company, and as such had occupied a fiduciary position towards the company, and that in breach of his duty to them he had made secret profits out of the company; that he had caused to be registered a company called the Dickinson Tramway Appliance Company, Limited, which was a sham company, and in fact himself, the signatories to its memorandum of association being his partners in business or clerks, its secretary his cashier, and 1500 out of the 1507 shares in the company issued being held by him; that certain worthless patents which had been bought up by him for small sums were assigned by him to the Dickinson Tramway Appliance Company; and that he then procured the South Staffordshire and Birmingham District Steam Tramways Company and the plaintiffs to purchase articles the subject-matter of the patents and licences to use the patents at exorbitant prices, and without any disclosure of the extent and nature of his interest in them, and without any regard for the interest of the South Staffordshire and Birmingham District Steam Tramways Company and the plaintiffs; and they claimed damages, an account of the profits made by the defendant in respect of the matters alleged, a rescission of the plaintiffs' contracts with regard to the patents, and a return of all sums paid to the defendant in respect of them.
The plaintiffs applied at chambers under the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1879, s. 7, for an order that they might be at liberty to inspect the books of the bank at which the defendant and the Dickinson Tramway Appliance Company had kept accounts for the years 1885 to 1894, both inclusive, containing entries of the accounts of the defendant and of the accounts of the Dickinson Tramway Appliance Company, Limited, and to take copies of such entries, on the ground that it was essential for the working out of the evidence in support of their case that they should have such inspection.
The defendant made an affidavit in which he swore that, with the exception of three items, of which he produced copies certified to be correct by an official of the bankF1, there were no entries in his account of which inspection was sought relating to the matters in question in the action.
Affidavits were filed for the plaintiffs to the effect that the signatories to the memorandum of association of the Dickinson Tramway Appliance Company were the defendant's partners, cashier, and clerks, and that the defendant was originally and continued for some years the holder of 1500 out of the 1507 shares in the company issued. It appeared, however, that his interest in these shares had been subsequently transferred to a company called the Corporate Trust, Limited; and there was a conflict of evidence on the affidavits as to whether this really took place in 1889 or not till 1893. As will be seen, the grounds upon which the judgment was given render it unnecessary for the purposes of this report to give particulars of the statements contained in the affidavits with regard to the relations between the defendant and the Dickinson Tramway Appliance Company. The master made the order for which the plaintiffs applied, but the learned judge on appeal reversed his decision.
Sir F. Lockwood, Q.C., and Scrutton, for the plaintiffs. It is submitted that there is clearly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Goh Hooi Yin v Lim Teong Ghee and Others
- Waterhouse v Barker
-
Deniz (D.B.) Nakliyati TAS v Yugopetrol
...was meant was entries in an account which is in form or in substance the account of a party to the litigation." 6 In South Staffordshire Tramways Company v. Ebbsmith [1895] 2 Q.B. 669 at pages 674–5 Lord Esher, M.R., described the requirements which had to be satisfied in order to support a......
-
Wee Soon Kim Anthony v UBS AG and Another Case
...party may inspect the bank account of another person is subject to his right to discovery. In South Staffordshire Tramways Co v Ebbsmith [1895] 2 QB 669, the Court of Appeal, in considering the equivalent provisions in the English Bankers’ Book Evidence Act 1879, held that an order for insp......
-
Courts 2
...On the interpretation of the section, see generally Waterhouse v. Barker (1924) 2 K.B. 759, South Staffordshire Tramways Co. v. Ebbsmith (1895) 2 Q.B 669. Perry v. Phosphor Bronze Co. Ltd (1894) 71 L.T. 854; Arnott v. Hayes (1887) 36 Ch. D.731; Howard v. Beall (1889) 23.Q.B.D 2: In Re Trade......