The Hague Evidence Convention And Discovery: A Serious Misunderstanding?

International and Comparative Law Quarterly

Volumn 35, Issue 4, 1986, Pages 765-786

  Collins, Lawrence ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84976088854     PISSN: 00205893     EISSN: 14716895     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/iclqaj/35.4.765     Document Type: Article

References (76)

1. Re Messerschmitt Bolkow Blohm GmbH, 757 F. 2d 729 (5th Cir. 1985); Re Société Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale, 788 F. 2d 1408 (9th Cir. 1986).
2. F. 2d 729, 731.
3. Re Société Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale, 782 F. 2d 120 (8th Cir. 1986).
4. Volkswagenwerk AG v. Superior Court, 123 Cal.App. 3d 840 (1981); Pierburg GmbH & Co. KG v. Superior Court, 137 Cal.App. 3d 238 (1982). See also Volkswagenwerk AG v. Superior Court, 33 Cal.App. 3d 503 (1973), which was not a Hague Evidence Convention case.
5. Re Soctttt Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale, 788 F. 2d 1408, 1410; Re Messerschmitt Bolkow Blohm GmbH, 757 F. 2d. 729, 730 (5th Cir. 1985).
6. Philadelphia Gear Corp. v. American Pfauter Corp., 100 F.R.D. 58, 60 (E.D. Pa. 1983).
7. Re Société Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale, 782 F. 2d 120, 123.
8. Philadelphia Gear Corp. v. American Pfauter Corp., 100 F.R.D. 58, 59.
9. International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Lee, supra n.7, at pp.442-443. See also Pierburg GmbH & Co. KG v. Superior Court, 137 Cal.App. 3d 238, 244 (1982).
10. Philadelphia Gear Corp. v. American Pfauter Corp., 100 F.R.D. 58, 61.
11. See Cohn, Manual of German Law (2nd ed., 1971), Vol.2, pp.219-229; Herzog, Civil Procedure in France (1967), Chap.5.
12. The other form of discovery in English law is that of interrogatories (RSC Ord.26) but this has become rare.
13. RSC Ord.24, rr.l, 2(1) and (5), 3, 7(1).
14. Compagnie Financièrs du Pacifiqus v. Peruvian Guano Co. (1882) 11 Q.B.D. 55, 62–63.
15. Moore, Federal Practice (1984), Vol.4, para.26-52.
16. Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153, 179(1979).
17. See Collins (1979) 13 Int.L. 27, 28–29.
18. Re Westinghouse Uranium Contract [1978] A.C. 547, 635 (per Lord Diplock); see also Application of Forsyth [1984] 2 N.S.W.L.R. 327, 331–332.
19. An action seeking the identity of a wrongdoer: Norwich Pharmacol Co. v. Commissioners of Customs &Excise [1974] A.C. 133; or an action for personal injuries: Administration of Justice Act 1970, s.34(2) and RSC Ord.24, r.7A.
20. Elder v. Carter (1890) 15 Q.B.D. 194.
21. South Carolina Insurance Co. v. Assurantie Maatschappij “dc Zeven Provincien” NV [1986] 3 W.L.R. 398, 404 (HL).
22. [1891] 2 Q.B. 241 (CA).
23. [1956] 1 Q.B. 618, applied in Application of Forsyth [1984] 2 N.S.W.R. 327.
24. Idem, pp.643-644.
25. Idem, p.649.
26. [1967] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 222 (CA). See also Penn-Texas Corp. v. Murat Anstalt (No.1) [1964] 1 Q.B. 40 (CA); (No.2) [1964] 2 Q.B. 647 (CA).
27. Idem, p.225.
28. 1968 Documents, pp. 15, 27, 55, 202.
29. (1969) VII.I.L.M. 785, 804–820.
30. (1973) XII I.L.M. 323.
31. Secretary of State's transmittal letter (1973) XII I.L.M. 326: cf. Report of US Delegation (1969) VII I.L.M. 785, 820.
32. E.g. 1968 Documents, pp. 16, 28, 41.
33. 1968 Documents, p.204; (1973) XII I.L.M. 327, 329.
34. Heck (1986) 24 Col.J.Trans.L. 231, 232; see also idem, p.237.
35. Idem, p.237.
36. Amram (1973) 67 A.J.I.L. 104, 106; US Delegation Report (1969) VII I.L.M. 810–811.
37. Philadelphia Gear Corp. v. American Pfauter Corp., 100 F.R.D. 58, 61; cf. Heck, op. cit. supra, n.39, at pp.236-237.
38. 1968 Documents, pp. 157–158.
39. Idem, pp.171, 177. Those in favour included Canada and Ireland, who have not signed or ratified the Convention. See also Ristau, International Judicial Assistance (1984), p.226.
40. 1968 Documents (supra n.31), p.204; (1973) XII I.L.M. 327, 329.
41. (1969) VII I.L.M. 785, 804 et seq.
42. (1973) XII I.L.M. 324.
43. Radio Corporation of America v. Rauland Corporation [1956] 1 Q.B. 618, 646; for a later reaffirmation of the point, see Re Westinghouse Uranium Contract [1978] A.C. 547, 608–609, 642.
44. (1969) 18 I.C.L.Q. 646, 650.
45. Amram (1969) 55 A.B.A.J. 651 does not mention discovery.
46. S.I. 1976 No.429.
47. All States which have ratified the Convention, except the United States, Barbados, Israel and Czechoslovakia, have made a reservation under Art.23.
48. See Re Westinghouse Uranium Contract [1978] A.C. 547, 608; Re Asbestos Insurance Coverage Cases [1985] 1 W.L.R. 331, 335 (HL).
49. S.2(2).
50. S.2(3).
51. [1978] A.C. 547, 634 (per Lord Diplock); cf. pp.609 (Lord Wilberforce), 653 (Lord Keith). Oxman (1983) 37 U. Miami L.Rev. 733, 775, who is a proponent of the “limited” reservation theory, minimises the importance of this provision.
52. 1980 Documents (supra n.31), p.420; (1978) XVII I.L.M. 1425, 1428. This view is apparently shared by senior officials of the Hague Conference: Droz and Dyer (1981) 3 Northwestern J.Int.L.Bus. 155, 166–167. See also Comment (1984) 132 U.Pa.L.Rev. 1461, 1469.
53. [1978] A.C. 547, 610–611, 619, 642.
54. Idem, p.645.
55. Cf. Ristau, op. cit. supra n.45, at p.233; in its brief in the Club Mediterrarée case the US Government suggested that “the precise import of Article 23 is highly uncertain”: (1984) XXIII I.L.M. 1332, 1338.
56. See [1978] A.C. 547, 610, 611, 634-635.
57. Idem, p.634, and cf. p.654 (per Lord Keith). See also Re Asbestos Insurance Coverage Cases [1985] 1 W.L.R. 331 (HL); Re State of Norway's Application, In Re Anders Jahre [1986] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 497 (CA); SEC v. Certain Unknown Purchasers of the Common Stock etc. of Santa Fe International Corporation (1984) XXIII I.L.M. 511 (Drake J). Each of these cases concerned material required for trial, but which was alleged by the witness to be of a “fishing” character.
58. (1978) XVII I.L.M. 1417.
59. Idem, p.1421.
60. (1985) XXIV I.L.M. 1668.
61. See also McClean and McLachlan, The Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad: Explanatory Documentation prepared for Commonwealth Jurisdictions (Commonwealth Secretariat, 1985), pp.12-14.
62. In Boreri v. Fiat SpA, 763 F. 2d 17, 19 (1st Cir. 1985), the court contrasted a general reservation by Italy under Art.23 with “some restrictions” imposed by other States.
63. See supra text at n.21. This was recognised by the Munich Court of Appeal in the Siemens aspect of the Coming case: (1981) XX I.L.M. 1025, 1039.
64. [1978] A.C. 547, 654.
65. The decision of the Bavarian Ministry of Justice to allow oral depositions in the Coming case ((1981) XX I.L.M. 1047) may be regarded in this sense, or, alternatively, as a legal view that the bar on discovery related only to documentary discovery.
66. Re Anschuetz & Co. GmbH, 754 F. 2d 602, 609-610, 615 (5th Cir. 1985); Graco Inc. v. Kremlin, Inc., 101 F.R.D. 503, 519–520 (N.D. 111. 1984).
67. Re Anschuetz & Co. GmbH, 754 F. 2d 602, 611; Re Société Rationale Industrielle Aerospatiale, 788 F. 2d 1408, 1411 (9th Cir. 1986); Graco Inc, v. Kremlin, Inc., 101 F.R.D. 503, 519–520.
68. Re Anschuetz & Co. GmbH, 754 F. 2d 602, 611, 615; Re Messerschmitt Bolkow Blohm GmbH, 757 F 2d 729, 731 (5th Cir. 1986); Re Société Nationale Industrielle Aerospatiale, 782 F 2d 120, 125 (8th Cir. 1986).
69. Volkswagenwerk AG v. Superior Court, 123 Cal. App. 3d 840 (1981).
70. See e.g. Re Anschuetz & Co. GmbH, 754 F. 2d 602, 606 (5th Cir. 1985); cf. Graco Inc. v. Kremlin Inc., 101 F.R.D. 503, 518 (N.D. 111. 1984).
71. U.S. 694 (1982).
72. (1983) 37 U.Miami L.Rev. 733, 740–742.
73. See especially World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980). The cases are fully discussed by Hay (1986) 351.C.L.Q. 32.
74. Law of 16 July 1980, inserting section I bis to Law of 26 July 1968.
75. Collins, “International Law Aspects of Obtaining Evidence Abroad”, in Extraterritorial Application of Laws and Responses Thereto (Olmstead (Ed.), 1984), p.186.
76. See Jennings (1957) 33 B.Y.I.L. 146, 171; Jennings and Mann, International Law Association, 52nd Conference Proceedings (1966), p.112.