UCC v Bender and Ors 4-May-2006 [2006] JRC 068A (04 May 2006)

UCC v Bender and Ors 4-May-2006 [2006] JRC 068A (04 May 2006)

The second defendant's pursuit of US s1782 proceedings for discovery and depositions at this stage is unconscionable because it interferes with the due process and timetable of the Jersey court, risks delaying the Court of Appeal hearing, and seeks discovery of material that will be available through Jersey...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2006] JRC 068A
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff (Assignee of Mr Silverman); Second Defendant: Mr Koonmen; First Defendant: Mr Bender; Non Party Witness: Mr Silverman; Non Party Witness: Mrs Silverman
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
04 May 2006
Procedural Posture
Injunction Application / Interlocutory (urgent Application for Injunction Pending Appeal)
Outcome
injunction granted
Legal Topics
Anti Suit Injunctions, Foreign Evidence Gathering, Forum Non Conveniens, Discovery, Depositions
Civil Procedure Conflict of Laws Anti Suit Injunctions Foreign Evidence Gathering Forum Non Conveniens Discovery Depositions

Source-derived case record

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff (Assignee of Mr Silverman)

Plaintiff

Mr Koonmen

Second Defendant

Mr Bender

First Defendant

Mr Silverman

Non Party Witness

Mrs Silverman

Non Party Witness

Procedural Posture

Injunction Application / Interlocutory (urgent Application for Injunction Pending Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the second defendant's pursuit of US s1782 proceedings for discovery and depositions constitutes unconscionable conduct interfering with the due process of the Jersey court.
  2. 2 Whether an injunction should be granted restraining the second defendant from proceeding with or enforcing the US application.

Ratio Decidendi

The second defendant's pursuit of US s1782 proceedings for discovery and depositions at this stage is unconscionable because it interferes with the due process and timetable of the Jersey court, risks delaying the Court of Appeal hearing, and seeks discovery of material that will be available through Jersey procedures if the forum is confirmed. The taking of depositions would subject witnesses to unfair double cross-examination and is an oppressive interference with the Jersey process.

Court Disposition

injunction granted

Orders

  • The second defendant is immediately restrained from proceeding with or seeking to enforce the US s1782 application or commencing any similar application.
  • The second defendant must immediately apply to the US District Court to discontinue the s1782 application and set aside its orders requiring Mr and Mrs Silverman to produce documents and be deposed.