Breslin & Anor v Murphy & Anor [2012] NIQB 69 (5 October 2012)

Breslin & Anor v Murphy & Anor [2012] NIQB 69 (5 October 2012)

The application for taking evidence under Council Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 is valid as the Regulation is not confined to non-contentious evidence, the best available address for a protected witness suffices, and any procedural deficiencies are technical and not substantive. The Regulation should be interpreted purposively to promote judicial cooperation, and the ACTE CLAIR doctrine applies, making a reference to the ECJ unnecessary.

Citation
[2012] NIQB 69
Parties
Plaintiffs: Mark Christopher Breslin and Others; Defendant: Michael Colm Murphy; Defendant: Seamus Daly
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
05 October 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil / Pre Trial Application in Retrial Proceedings
Outcome
Plaintiffs' application granted; defendant's objections and request for ECJ reference refused.
Legal Topics
Taking of Evidence in Civil Matters, Judicial Cooperation Between EU Member States, Interpretation of EU Regulations, Procedural Requirements Under Council Regulation (ec) No 1206/2001
Civil Procedure European Union Law Taking of Evidence in Civil Matters Judicial Cooperation Between EU Member States Interpretation of EU Regulations Procedural Requirements Under Council Regulation (ec) No 1206/2001

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mark Christopher Breslin and Others

Plaintiffs

Michael Colm Murphy

Defendant

Seamus Daly

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Pre Trial Application in Retrial Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for taking evidence under Council Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 is valid despite alleged procedural deficiencies
  2. 2 Whether the Regulation is confined to non-contentious evidence
  3. 3 Whether lack of address for a protected witness is fatal to the application

Ratio Decidendi

The application for taking evidence under Council Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 is valid as the Regulation is not confined to non-contentious evidence, the best available address for a protected witness suffices, and any procedural deficiencies are technical and not substantive. The Regulation should be interpreted purposively to promote judicial cooperation, and the ACTE CLAIR doctrine applies, making a reference to the ECJ unnecessary.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' application granted; defendant's objections and request for ECJ reference refused.

Orders

  • Leave granted to make a request to the High Court of the Republic of Ireland for examination of specified witnesses and documents under Council Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001.
  • Application for ECJ reference refused.