Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T03:17:14.392Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Jurisdictional Limits of Disclosure Orders in Transnational Fraud Litigation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 January 2008

Campbell McLachlan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A modern approach to private international law must deal adequately with three overall concerns. First, it must provide functional responses to the modern international context of trade and commerce in which cross-border problems arise. Second, it must provide effective and fair remedies in civil disputes when those disputes spill over national borders. Third, it must resolve the otherwise irreconcilable conflicts between national legal systems—not as an end in itself or solely as a means of finding comity among nations, but in order to do substantial justice between the private litigants involved. As Dicey had it in the choice of law context, this “does not arise from the desire of the sovereign of England or any other sovereign to show courtesy to other states. It flows from the impossibility of otherwise determining whole classes of cases without gross inconvenience and injustice to litigants, whether natives or foreigners.” It is the burden of this article to examine the way in which the English courts have sought to work out these three general functions in the context of developing rules that govern the ambit of interlocutory orders to disclose and trace the proceeds of fraud internationally. Having identified the problems of abuse presented by the new opportunities of the international banking system, the courts have been quick to innovate in developing new remedies. But just as quickly they have run up against the boundaries of such remedies, both in granting orders themselves and in reacting to foreign orders.

Type
Article
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 47 , Issue 1 , January 1998 , pp. 3 - 49
Copyright
Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. For an earlier development of these theories see McLachlan, , “The New Hague Sales Convention and the Limits of the Choice of Law Process” (1986) 102 L.Q.R. 591.Google Scholar

2. Dicey, , Conflict of Laws (1st edn, 1896), p.10.Google Scholar

3. The principal sources referred to are Collins, “The Territorial Reach of Mareva Injunctions” (1989) 105 L.Q.R. 262Google Scholar and “Provisional and Protective Measures in International Litigation”, in Essays in International Litigation and the Conflict of Laws (1994), p.1Google Scholar; Kinsch, , Le Fait du Prince Étranger (1994)Google Scholar; McClean, , International Judicial Assistance (1992)Google Scholar; Lowenfeld, , International Litigation and the Quest for Reasonableness (1996)Google Scholar; Gee, , Mareva Injunctions and Anton Piller Relief (3rd edn, 1995)Google Scholar; Aitken, , “Transnational Bank Fraud” (1994)68 Australian L. J. 790Google Scholar; Born, , International Civil Litigation in United States Courts (3rd edn, 1996)Google Scholar; Hoffmann, , “Changing Perspectives on Civil Litigation” (1993) 56 M.L.R. 297.Google Scholar See also McLachlan, , “Transnational Interlocutory Measures for the Preservation of Assets”, in Lye Lin, Heng (Ed.). Current Legal Issues in the Internationalization of Business Enterprises (1996).Google Scholar

4. Cf. McLachlan, , op. cit. supra n.1, at p.592.Google Scholar

5. Brannigan et al. v. Davison [1997] A.C. 238 (PC)Google Scholar; affirming (as to part) decision of NZ CA rptd sub nom, Controller and Auditor-General v. Davison [1996] 2 N.Z.L.R. 278.Google Scholar The decision is referred to herein by the colloquial name of the Commission of Inquiry undertaken by Sir Ronald Davison: the Winebox Inquiry. The Inquiry subsequently reported on 14 Aug. 1997, substantially finding no evidence of fraud.

6. See the discussion in McLachlan, , “Splitting the Proper Law in Private International Law” [1990] B.Y.I.L. 311, 331–334Google Scholar of Libyan Arab Foreign Bank v. Bankers Trust Co. [1989] 1 Q.B. 728Google Scholar and Smedresman, and Lowenfeld, , “Eurodollars, Multinational Banks, and National Laws” (1989) 64 N.Y.U.L.R. 733.Google Scholar

7. See Norman, , “Tracing the Proceeds of Crime: An Inequitable Solution?”, in Birks, (Ed.), Laundering and Tracing (1995), pp.95, 97Google Scholar; and McClean, op. cit. supra n. 3, at pp.277–286.Google Scholar

8. Winebox, supra n. 5 (Cook Islands); Attorney-General for Hong Kong v. Reid, discussed infra Part IV (Vanuatu).

9. See Transparency International Building a Global Coalition against Corruption (1995).Google Scholar

10. Millett, , “Tracing the Proceeds of Fraud” (1991) 107 L.Q.R. 71.Google Scholar

11. [1996] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 7 (CA).Google Scholar

11. Arab Monetary Fund v. Hashim [1991] 2 A.C. 114Google Scholar, [1993] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 543.Google Scholar

13. Republic of Haiti v. Duvalier [1990] 1 Q.B. 202.Google Scholar

14. See also Sumitomo Bank Ltd v. Kartika Rama Thahir et al. [1993] 1 S.L.R. 735.Google Scholar

15. See e.g. ISC Technologies Ltd v. Guerin et al. [1992] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 430.Google Scholar

16. See International Law Association Committee on International Civil and Commercial Litigation, “Second Interim Report: Provisional and Protective Measures in International Litigation”, Report of the 67th Conference, Helsinki (1996), p.185.Google Scholar

17. Collins, , op. cit. supra n.3 (1989), at pp.286, 297.Google Scholar

18. Arab Monetary Fund v. Hashim (No.5) [1992] 2 All E.R. 911, 913.Google Scholar

19. Ibid.

20. Cf. Deutsche Schachtbau-und-Tiefbohrgeseft mb H v. R'As al-Khaimah National Oil Co. (Nos.1 and 2) [1990] 1 A.C 295 (discussing the protection of third parties from internationally conflicting obligations in the grant of garnishee orders).Google Scholar

21. See Kinsch, . op. cit supra n. 3, at pp.92–119, 212, 214–216Google Scholar; Lowenfeld, op. cit. supra n. 3.

22. See the discussion in Aitken, op. cit. supra n. 3.

23. See Nygh, , “Transnational Fraud” and McLachlan, , “Restitution”, in McLachlan, and Nygh, (Eds), Transnational Tort Litigation: Jurisdictional Principles (1996), pp.1, 83, 215.Google Scholar

24. See generally Rose, (Ed.), Restitution and the Conflict of Laws (1995).Google Scholar

25. See generally Collins, (1994)Google Scholar and McLachlan, , both op. cit. supra n. 3.Google Scholar

26. See generally Birks, . op. cit. supra n.7. In particular see Attorney-General of HongKong v. Reid [1994] 1 A.C. 324Google Scholar; El Ajou v. Dollar Land Holdings plc [1994] 2 All E.R. 685 (CA)Google Scholar; Re Goldcorp Exchange Ltd [1995] 1 A.C 74Google Scholar; Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v. Council of the London Borough of Islington [1994] 1 W.L.R. 938 (CA).Google Scholar

27. Unrep., 26 May 1978.

28. Mediterranea Raffineria Siciliana Petroli Sp A v. Mabanaft GmbH (CA. unrep., 1 Dec. 1978).

29. [1980] 2 All E.R. 347.Google Scholar

30. Interpool v. Galani [1988] Q.B. 738 (CA)Google Scholar; see, in England, RSC Ord.48.

31. Ballabil Holdings Pty Ltd v. Hospital Products Ltd (1985) 1 N.S.W.L.R. 155.Google Scholar

32. Asean Resources Ltd v. Ka Wah International Merchant Finance Ltd [1987] L.R.C (Comm.)835.Google Scholar

33. [1987] Q.B. 888Google Scholar; see McLachlan, , “Transnational Applications of Mareva Injunctions and Anton Piller Orders” (1987) 36 I.C.L.Q. 669.Google Scholar

34. Babanaft International Co. SA v. Basstne [1990] Ch. 13Google Scholar; Derby & Co. Ltd v. Weldon (No.1) [1990] Ch. 48; (Nos.3 & 4) [1990] Ch. 65; (No.6) [1990] 1 W.L.R. 1139Google Scholar; Republic of Haiti v. Duvalier [1990] 1 Q. B. 202.Google ScholarSee Collins, (1989), op. cit. supra n. 3Google Scholar; McLachlan, , “Remedies Affecting Bank Deposits”, in Cranston, (Ed), Legal Issues of Cross Border Banking (1989) and op. cit. supra n.3.Google Scholar

35. Idem. pp.94–95.

36. Gidrxslme Shipping Co. Ltd v. Tantomar Transporters Maritimos Ltd [1995] 1 W.L.R. 299.Google Scholar

37. McLachlan, , op. cit. supra a.33, at p.675.Google Scholar

38. Unrep., CA. 16 Feb. 1994.

39. [1996] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 7.Google Scholar

40. Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (Interim Relief) Order 1997 (S.I. 1997 No.302); Rules of the Supreme Court (Amendment) 1997 (S.I. 1997 No.415 (L.2)).

41. The Siskina [1979] A.C. 210.Google Scholar

42. [1990] 1 Q.B. 202.Google Scholar

43. Unrep., 7 June 1988, CA: Transcript No.490 of 1988.

44. Supra n.13, at p.216E–F.Google Scholar

45. Idem, p. 217 A.

46. [1996]1 A.C 241Google Scholar as to which See Collins, , “The Siskina Again: An Opportunity Missed” (1996) 112 L.Q.R. 8Google Scholar; McLachlan, , “Provisional Measures in Aid of Foreign Proceedings: Has the English Response been Adequate?”, in Goldsmith, (Ed.), International Dispute Resolution: The Regulation of Forum Selection (1987), p. 169.Google Scholar

47. Leiduck, idem. p.305.

48. RSC Ord. 11, r.8A.

49. s.25(7).

50. Ibid.

51. S.25(2).

52. Report of Prof. P. Schlosser on the Accession.of Denmark, Ireland and the UK to the Brussels Convention, 9 Oct. 1978, paras.184–187 (1979) O.J. C59/71.Google Scholar

53. See e.g. the approach taken to the execution of letters rogatory both within and outside the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad 1970: Burchard v. Macfarlane [1891] 2 Q.B. 241 (CA)Google Scholar; Radio Corporation of America v. Rauland Corporation [1956] 1 Q.B. 618Google Scholar; Re Westinghouse Uranium Contract Litigation MDL Docket No 235 [1978] A.C 547.Google Scholar

54. Reichert v. Dresdner Bank (No.2) [1997] I.L. Pr. 404.Google Scholar

55. Rosseel NV v. Oriental Commercial Ltd [1990] 1 W.L.R. 1387, [1990] 3 All E.R. 545.Google Scholar

56. Idem (All E.R.) p.546.

57. Ibid.

58. S & T Bautrading v. Nordling [1997] 3 All E.R. 718.Google Scholar

59. [1997] 3 All E.R. 724.Google Scholar

60. Idem, p.730.

61. Collins, (1989), op. cit. supra n.3, at p.281.Google Scholar

62. [1979] Ch. 439.Google Scholar

63. [1985] 1 W.L.R. 457.Google ScholarSee also Protector Alarms v. Maxim Alarms [1978] F.S.R. 442.Google Scholar

64. See McLachlan, . op. cit. supra n.33Google Scholar: Gee, , op. cit. supra n.3. at pp.49–52; RSC Ord.11. rr.5(2) and 9(7).Google Scholar

65. Derby & Co. Ltd v. Weldon (No.1) [1990] Ch. 48.Google Scholar

66. Idem. p.60.

67. Bayer v. Winter (No.2) [1986] F.S.R. 357Google Scholar: Derby & Co. Ltd v. Weldon (Nos.3 & 4) [1990] Ch. 65.Google Scholar

68. [1992]1 W.L.R. 919.Google Scholar

69. Idem. p.926.

70. Hoffmann, , op. cit. supra n.3, at pp.302–303.Google Scholar

71. Guide to Commercial Court Practice (3rd edn, 1995), p.62.Google Scholar

72. Re a Company [1985] B.C.L.C 333, 338.Google Scholar

73. See also SCF Finance Co. Ltd v. Masri [1985] 1 W.L.R. 876Google Scholar; Mercantile Group (Europe) A G v. Aiyela [1993] 3 W.L.R. 1116.Google Scholar

74. [1986] F.S.R. 357.Google Scholar

75. See infra Part V. But it may be met in some jurisdictions with the objection that the instructions were not voluntarily given, as required by local legislation. See e.g. In re ABC Ltd [1984] C.I.L.R. 30Google Scholar; Attorney-General v. Bank of Nova Scotia [1985] C.I.L.R. 418.Google Scholar

76. lsqb;1991] 2 Q.B. 310.Google Scholar

77. Idem, p. 338.

78. (1851) 1 Sim. (N.S.) 301.Google Scholar

79. (1867) L.R. 4 Eq. 327 and L.R. 3 Ch. App. 79.Google Scholar

80. Cmnd 3472.

81. [1989] 1 W.L.R. 565.Google Scholar

82. Supra n. 53, at pp. 587E–G, 636.Google Scholar

83. Supra n. 5, at p. 251D–E.Google Scholar

84. [1980]1 W.L.R. 1274.Google Scholar

85. [1974] A.C 133, 175.Google Scholar

86. Supra n. 84, at p.1282.Google Scholar

87. Arab Monetary Fund v. Hashim (No.5) [1992] 2 All E.R. 911.Google Scholar

88. Hoffmann, , op. cit. supra n. 3, at pp.300–301.Google Scholar

89. Principally the hitherto largely ignored decision of Hall V-C in Orr v. Diaper (1876) 4 Ch. D. 92.Google Scholar

90. Nor can a subpoena be used to obtain discovery from a non-party: MacMillan Inc. v. Bishopsgate Investment Trust [1993] 1 W.L.R. 1372 (CA).Google Scholar

91. [1986] Ch. 482. See also R. v. Grossman (1981) 73 Cr. App. R. 302.Google Scholar

92. [1986]Ch. 482, 493.

93. Idem, p. 494.

94. Hoffmann, , op. cit. supra n. 3, at p. 303.Google Scholar

95. See e.g. the remarks of Staughton LJ in Derby & Co. Ltd v. Weldon (No.6) [1990] 1 W.L.R. 1139, 1153.Google Scholar

96. Arab Monetary Fund v. Hashim (No.5) [1992] 2 All E.R. 911, 918.Google Scholar

97. Derby & Co. Ltd v. Weldon (No.6) [1990] 1 W.L.R. 1139, 1146H.Google Scholar

98. See e.g. the Grupo Torras litigation and the Jyske Bank litigation, which concern frauds centred in Spain and Gibraltar respectively.

99. Unrep., Hoffmann, J, 18 June 1990.Google Scholar

100. Unrep., Finesilver, J, 15 July 1993, USDC Middle District Florida; upheld on appeal 16 Feb. 1995.Google Scholar

101. ISC Technologies & Anor v. J.–P. Rivara & Anor (Unrep., Swiss Federal Supreme Court, Dec. 1990).Google Scholar

102. [1994] 1 A. C. 324.Google Scholar

103. Ibid. Reversing Lister & Co. v. Stubbs (1890) 45 Ch. D. 1.

104. Restatement (First) Conflict of Laws, s.94 (1934)Google Scholar: see Born, , op. cit. supra n. 3, at pp.871et seq.Google Scholar

105. Ings v. Ferguson 282 F.2d 149 (2nd Cir, 1960).Google Scholar

106. 357 U.S. 197 (1958).Google Scholar

107. 396 F.2d 897 (2nd Cir, 1968).Google Scholar

108. Cf. Restatement (Second) Foreign Relations Law, s.40.

109. Sec e.g. Alfadda v. Fenn 149 F.R.D. 28 (SDNY, 1993).Google Scholar But cf. Minpeco SA v. Conticommodity Services Inc. 116 F.R.D ). 517 (SDNY, 1987).Google Scholar

110. SEC v. Banca della Svizzera Italiana 92 F.R.D. 111 (SDNY, 1981).Google Scholar See the account of the litigation in Lowenfeld, op. cit. supra n. 3, at chap. VII.

111. United States v. Bank of Nova Scotia II740 F. 2d 817 (11 th Cir, 1984); cert. den. 469 U.S. 1106 (1985).Google Scholar

112. Loc.cit. supra n. 110.

113. X AG v. A Bank [1983] 2 All E.R. 464.Google ScholarFor comment see Lowenfeld, International Litigation and Arbitration (1993), pp.796–804.Google Scholar

114. [1983] 2 All E.R. 464, 480.Google Scholar

115. [1987] A.C. 45nGoogle Scholar, [1986] 3 W. L. R. 414.Google Scholar

116. [1990] 1 H.K.L.R. 277.Google Scholar

117. R. v. Grossman, supra n. 91.

118. supran.n. 116, at pp.284–285.Google Scholar

119. [1990] 1 H.K.L.R. 396Google Scholar; see Collins, (1994), op. cit. supra n. 3, at pp.102–107.Google Scholar

120. For a further example of an Anglo-Commonwealth court's treatment of a foreign disclosure order see the discussion in Lowenfeld, op. cit. supra n. 3, at pp.169–174 of the Bank of Nova Scotia cases in the Bahamas and the Cayman Islands.Google Scholar

121. Supra n. 5.

122. But see Re Santa Fe(1984)23 I. L. M. 511Google Scholar, [1985]E. C. C. 187Google Scholar(discussed infra n. 146)and the decisions of the English courts on disclosure of the beneficial owners of shares in British companies under s. 212 of the Companies Act 1985 and its predecessors: In re Geers Gross plc [1987].1.W.L.R. 1649Google Scholar; Re F.H. Lloyd Holding plc [1985] B.C.L.C. 293Google Scholar;, Re Ashbourne Investments Ltd [1978] 2 All E.R. 418.Google Scholar See also the misconceived (and unsuccessful) attempt of a party in an ordinary commercial case to argue that the French blocking statute precluded it from giving discovery in England: The Heidberg [1993] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 324.Google Scholar

123. [1997] A. C. 238, 245–246. The Commissioner's subsequent report, completed on 14 Aug. 1997, found no evidence of fraud in this or other related transactions.Google Scholar

124. [1996] 2 N. Z. L. R. 278.Google Scholar

125. Idem. p. 285.

126. Idem. p. 304.

127. Idem. p. 290.

128. Idem. p. 303. But cf. the discussion of the relativity of the commerciality test by Fox in “States in the Market Place” (1994) 110 L. Q. R. 199Google Scholar and “The Commerciality of the Spoils of War” (1996) 112 L.Q.R. 186.Google Scholar

129. Art.24, Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961. As to which see Shearson Lehman Brothers Inc. v. Maclaine Watson & Co. Ltd [1988] 1 W. L. R. 16Google Scholar(HL) and Mann, “‘Inviolability’ and other Problems of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations”, in Further Studies in International Law, p. 326.Google Scholar

130. Cf. Rahimtoola v. Nizam of Hyderabad [1958] A. C. 379.Google Scholar

131. Cf. the development of a category of public interest immunity for the communications of foreign sovereigns in a territorial dispute in Buttes Gas Oil Co. v. Hammer [1981] Q. B. 223Google Scholar (CA) rvsd on other grounds [1982] A. C. 888 (HL).Google Scholar

132. Air Canada v. Secretary of State for Trade [1983] 2 A.C. 394.Google Scholar

133. When the Inquiry reported (supra n. 5). Sir Ronald Davison applied the act of State doctrine so as not to enquire into the official acts of the Cook Islands government within its own territory: Report 2.1., pp.55–64.Google Scholar

134. [1996] 2 N.Z.L.R. 278, 290.Google Scholar

135. Idem, p. 292.

136. Idem, p. 347.

137. [1997] A. C. 238, 242.Google Scholar

138. Idem, p. 243.

139. Some of which are mentioned in supra Section II.G. Curiously, no mention is made in the judgment of the decision of Morritt J in Hashim (although it was cited in argument).

140. [1997] A. C. 238, 250.Google Scholar

141. Idem, pp. 249–250.

142. Ibid.

143. Kinsch, op. cit. supra n. 3, at pp.87–92.Google Scholar

144. [1985] 2 S. C. R. 278.Google Scholar

145. Idem, p. 281.

146. Supra n.122. Applied to the defendants' considerably less meritorious plea in The Heidberg [1993] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 324, 332.Google Scholar

147. Mac Kinnon, supra n. 91, at p.494Google Scholar, applied in The Heidberg, idem, pp.332–333.

148. See further McLachlan, , “The Impact of International Law on Civil Jurisdiction” [1993] Hague Y.B.I.L. 125.Google Scholar

149. See further McLachlan, , “Extraterritorial Orders Affecting Bank Deposits”, in Meessen, (Ed.), Extraterritorial Jurisdiction in Theory and Practice (1996), p. 39.Google Scholar

150. Kerr, , Law and Practice of Injunctions (6th edn, 1927), p. 11.Google Scholar

151. A position endorsed in the context of asset freezing orders by Principle 16 of the Helsinki Principles on Provisional and Protective Measures in International Litigation adopted by the International Law Association at its 67th Conference in 1996 (“the Helsinki Principles”). See the Report of the Conference, op. cit. supra n. 16, at pp.185–204.Google ScholarSee also Schlosser, , “Extraterritoriale Rechtsdurchsetzung im Zivilprozeß”, in Pfister, and Will, (Eds), Festschrift für Werner Lorenz.Google Scholar

152. Considerations which led a New York court to reject the UK government's plea of public interest immunity for cabinet papers in litigation in which it was a plaintiff: Department of Economic Development v. Arthur Andersen & Co. 139 F. R. D. 295 (SDNY, 1991).Google Scholar

153. See Principles 10–15 of the Helsinki Principles, supra n. 151.

154. Mann, “The Doctrine of Jurisdiction in International Law” (1964) 111 Hag.Rec. 146Google Scholar, cited with approval by Hoffmann, J in MacKinnon, supra n. 91, at p. 493.Google Scholar

155. Grupo Torras, supra n. 38, per Steyn LJ.

156. Discussed in Lowenfeld, op. cit. supra n. 3, at chap. VII and McClean, International Judicial Assistance (1992).Google Scholar

157. Cf. Helsinki Principles and Report, supra n. 151.