[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Three Rivers District Council & Ors v Bank of Credit & Commerce International (Sa) [2002] EWCA Civ 1071 (16 July 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/1071.html Cite as: [2002] EWCA Civ 1071

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

		Neutral Citation Number: [2002] EWCA Civ 1071
		A3/2002/1276

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH
COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
COMMERCIAL COURT

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2A 2LL
		16th July 2002

B e f o r e :

MASTER OF THE ROLLS LORD JUSTICE PHILLIPS
LORD JUSTICE CHADWICK
LORD JUSTICE KEENE
____________________

	(1) THREE RIVERS DISTRICT COUNCIL AND OTHERS
	(2) BANK OF CREDIT AND COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL (SA)
	(IN LIQUIDATION)	Appellants
	and
	HM TREASURY	First Respondent
	THE GOVERNOR AND THE COMPANY OF THE BANK OF ENGLAND	Second Respondent
	HM TREASURY	Appellant
	and
	(1) THREE RIVERS DISTRICT COUNCIL AND OTHERS
	(2) BANK OF CREDIT AND COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL SA
	(In Liquidation)	First Respondent

____________________

(Transcript of the Handed Down Judgment of
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

____________________

GORDON POLLOCK QC, DAVID MILDON QC and BARRY ISAACS(Instructed by Lovells) appeared on behalf of the Three Rivers DC & Oths.
NICHOLAS STADLEN QC, BANCIM THANKI and BEN VALENTIN (Instructed by Freshfields Bruckhaus Derringer) appeared on behalf of the Bank of England.
CHARLES HOLLANDER QC and SARAH LEE(instructed by Treasury Solicitor) appeared on behalf of H.M Treasury.
____________________

RULING
(AS APPROVED BY THE COURT)
____________________

Crown Copyright ©

Tuesday, 16th July 2002

RULING

1. LORD PHILLIPS MR: Before the judge below, Mr Stadlen on behalf of the Bank of England, urged that whether or not the judge had jurisdiction to accede to the discovery order sought, he ought in his discretion to dismiss the application because of the effect that acceding to it would have upon the timetable.

2. The judge dealt with the issue of law as to whether he had jurisdiction to make the order and concluded that he did and gave permission to appeal in relation to that.

3. So far as the exercise of his discretion is concerned, he certainly understood that he had adjourned that issue and reserved it to himself to consider in the light of further developments, including further evidence he anticipated he would receive from the Treasury Solicitor as to the impact of a discovery order on the timetable.

4. We are not in a position to evaluate those issues as we do not have the relevant material, and it seems to us that if we dismiss the appeal that has been made on the issue of law, the matter should plainly go back to the judge to decide what follows from that.