Microtechnologies, LLC v Autonomy, Inc (aka HP Autonomy) & Anor [2017] EWHC 613 (QB) (16 February 2017)

Microtechnologies, LLC v Autonomy, Inc (aka HP Autonomy) & Anor [2017] EWHC 613 (QB) (16 February 2017)

The court exercised its discretion to order that documents for examination be provided 28 days in advance, refused to require a detailed advance list of questions beyond the US court's letter of request topics, permitted cross-examination and leading questions as expressly requested by the US court, and declined to impose any restriction on the use of evidence beyond existing US protective orders. Costs were ordered in favour of the Autonomy Parties, with detailed assessment and interim payments.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 613
Parties
Plaintiff: Microtechnologies, LLC; Defendant and Plaintiff in Counterclaim/appellant: Autonomy, Inc (a/k/a HP Autonomy); Defendant and Plaintiff in Counterclaim/appellant: Autonomy Systems Limited; Non Party/respondent: Mr. Sushovan Tareque Hussain
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Application Under Evidence (proceedings in Other Jurisdictions) Act 1975 and CPR Part 34 / Post Judgment Consequential Matters on Appeal From Senior Master
Outcome
Appeal allowed; consequential orders made on terms set out in judgment.
Legal Topics
Taking of Evidence for Foreign Proceedings, Scope and Conduct of Witness Examination, Cross Examination in Foreign Evidence Requests, Restrictions on Use of Evidence, Costs Orders
Civil Procedure International Judicial Assistance Taking of Evidence for Foreign Proceedings Scope and Conduct of Witness Examination Cross Examination in Foreign Evidence Requests Restrictions on Use of Evidence Costs Orders

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Microtechnologies, LLC

Plaintiff

Autonomy, Inc (a/k/a HP Autonomy)

Defendant and Plaintiff in Counterclaim/appellant

Autonomy Systems Limited

Defendant and Plaintiff in Counterclaim/appellant

Mr. Sushovan Tareque Hussain

Non Party/respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under Evidence (proceedings in Other Jurisdictions) Act 1975 and CPR Part 34 / Post Judgment Consequential Matters on Appeal From Senior Master

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Timing for provision of examination documents
  2. 2 Requirement for advance list of questions
  3. 3 Permissibility of cross-examination/leading questions

Ratio Decidendi

The court exercised its discretion to order that documents for examination be provided 28 days in advance, refused to require a detailed advance list of questions beyond the US court's letter of request topics, permitted cross-examination and leading questions as expressly requested by the US court, and declined to impose any restriction on the use of evidence beyond existing US protective orders. Costs were ordered in favour of the Autonomy Parties, with detailed assessment and interim payments.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; consequential orders made on terms set out in judgment.

Orders

  • Documents for examination to be provided 28 days in advance to Mr. Hussain.
  • No requirement for advance list of questions beyond topics in US court's letter of request, with certain clarifications.