0370 270 6000

Morris v Bank of India, Chancery Division, 15 November 2001

3 December 2001
The issues

Procedure – Evidence – Disclosure of Instructions.

The facts

The parties to this action had to disclose banking evidence following which a memorandum of agreed and disputed issues was to be produced prior to exchange of witness statements. The reports were exchanged. Claimants required replies to questions. Claimants were not satisfied with the replies contending amongst other matters that the replies raised factual allegations not made in the Pleadings or the Disclosed Documents and that the Report did not identify all the instructions on which it had been based. The Defendant’s argued that it was inappropriate to order the production of draft witness statements because they were privileged. The Claimants sought an Order that the Defendants serve a document containing all of the underlying information relied upon by their banking expert.

The decision

1. An expert report should contain a statement setting out the contents of all instructions relied upon.

2. In this case the Experts Report had to be exchanged prior to factual witness statements.

3. The Report was defective because it did not contain a statement of the substance of material instructions.

4. It was therefore open to the Court to order disclosure of the Instructions given for the purpose of the Report.

5. If the expert had been provided with draft witness statements which he had been told not to refer to but to use the information in them for his report then the witness statements would lose their privilege because they then formed part of the instructions.

Claimants were entitled to the Order sought.

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