Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court, in proceedings instituted by the official assignee seeking to set aside transfers of assets by a bankrupt to the defendant, refuses a cross-application by both parties to order the attendance of two witnesses for cross-examination by the opposing side, on the grounds that to do so would not assist the court in determining the defendant's application to strike out/dismiss the assignee's claim on the grounds of "forum non conveniens" and abuse of process.
Commercial court - application to court for attendance of witness for purposes of cross-examination by defence - reciprocal order sought by plaintiff - Order 40 Rule 1 RSC - substantial transfer of assets from bankrupt to defendant - chapter 7 'adversary' proceedings in USA seeking return of assets - official assignee in Irish jurisdiction seeking to set aside same transfers - defendant brought motion to strike out Irish proceedings on grounds of forum non conveniens and abuse of process - affidavits of intended witnesses already exchanged - principles to be applied - defendant not a creditor of bankrupt and therefore has no standing to raise issues relating to distribution of assets - cross-examination will not be ordered simply because a deponent has not addressed specific issued in his or her affidavit - issues for determination of motion based on principle of forum non conveniens - defendant's need to cross-examine - plaintiff's entitlement to bring proceedings - issue decided by judgment of US bankruptcy court - trustee's entitlement to disclaim outcome of Irish proceedings - issue falls outside scope of intended witness's expertise on US bankruptcy law - problems inherent in duplication of proceedings - futile to predetermine US court outcomes - expense and unfairness in dealing with two sets of proceedings in two countries - cross-examination on this issue unnecessary and will not help resolve conflict on substantive motion - application refused to both defendant and plaintiff.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
The only e-mail alert service for all Irish judgments over the past 13 years. Click here to request a subscription.
Register Now