Versloot Dredging BV v HDI Gerling Industrie Versicherung Ag & Ors

Versloot Dredging BV v HDI Gerling Industrie Versicherung Ag & Ors

The court held that while the claimants are entitled to seek access to and interview Mr Gravendeel, subject to privilege and confidentiality, the conduct of the defendants and their solicitors did not amount to improper interference or contempt. The witness is free to decide whether to be interviewed, and cannot be compelled or pressured by either party. No injunctive relief is warranted as there is no real prospect of unlawful behaviour by the defendants.

Parties
Claimant: Versloot Dredging BV; Defendants: HDI Gerling Industrie Versicherung AG & 6 Others
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Application / Interlocutory Application for Injunction
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Witness Access, Privilege, Contempt of Court, Interference With Witnesses
Civil Procedure Evidence Witness Access Privilege Contempt of Court Interference With Witnesses

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Versloot Dredging BV

Claimant

HDI Gerling Industrie Versicherung AG & 6 Others

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Application / Interlocutory Application for Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants unlawfully interfered with the claimants’ access to a material witness (Mr Gravendeel)
  2. 2 Whether the claimants are entitled to an injunction restraining the defendants from impeding access to the witness
  3. 3 The scope and limits of the 'no property in a witness' rule and its interaction with privilege and confidentiality

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that while the claimants are entitled to seek access to and interview Mr Gravendeel, subject to privilege and confidentiality, the conduct of the defendants and their solicitors did not amount to improper interference or contempt. The witness is free to decide whether to be interviewed, and cannot be compelled or pressured by either party. No injunctive relief is warranted as there is no real prospect of unlawful behaviour by the defendants.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed