0370 270 6000

Barings Plc v Coopers and Lybrand, Court of Appeal, 20 July 2001

31 July 2001
The issues

Evidence – admissibility – whether Judge should read potentially inadmissible documents.

The facts

The claimants appealed from the decision of the High Court Judge who had decided that he was entitled to read as part of his pre-reading before trial that documents comprising two reports published following the enquiries into the collapse of Bearings Bank. The claimants contended that those documents contained material that was plainly or at least arguably inadmissible and which the Judge should not read.

The decision

There was no reason either in law or practice for preventing a Judge from reading or hearing material that was either potentially or actually inadmissible and this was especially so while the Judge was judge of both law and fact. Given that his intention was to read the documents solely to get into what was a long and complicated case there was no danger of his being influenced in by what he read.

Focus on...

Legal updates

Court of Appeal confirms exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies in Canadian pipeline dispute

On 10 June 2022 the Court of Appeal upheld an anti-suit injunction granted in favour of insurers by Mr Justice Jacobs in September 2021 restraining proceedings from being brought in Canada and enforcing the exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies.



Payment Fraud landscape shaped by technology in 2021

Payment systems across Europe are under increased pressure to mitigate fraud risks and defend against persistent attacks from enablers using ever more sophisticated and malicious viruses and malware.


Legal updates

Gosden and another v Halliwell Landau and another [2021] EWHC 159 (Comm)

This claim addressed the question, of when the date for assessment of damages in cases of negligence should be determined and shows that when appropriate the Courts will depart from the default position.


Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.


The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up