0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

Forgotten your password?

Bank of Credit and Commerce International v Rahim, Chancery Division, 11 October 2005

14 December 2006
The issues

Witness Evidence – Whether Witness Should Give Evidence By Video

The facts

The applicant who was the liquidator applied for an Order that a witness should give evidence by video link from Pakistan. The liquidator was the liquidator of BCCI and the witness, the Chief Executive of BCCI. The witness was in poor health and required regular medical check ups and was in fear of being arrested if he entered the United Kingdom. The application was opposed on the basis that in exceptional circumstances a witness should attend Court to give evidence so that his demeanour could be assessed.

The decision

1. The Defendant’s argument was inconsistent with the decision of the House of Lords in Polanski v Conde Nast Publications Limited. That decision made it clear that giving evidence by video link was an entirely satisfactory method of giving evidence if there was a proper reason for departing from the normal rule that witnesses gave evidence in person.
2. A fugitive from justice was nonetheless entitled to invoke the assistance of the Court and its procedures to protect his civil rights and it would be inconsistent if a fugitive was entitled to bring his proceedings in the UK but could not take advantage of a procedural facility flowing from a modern technological development which had become readily available to all litigants.
3. The process of having witnesses give evidence via video link was well recognised in the Courts and was little different from seeing a witness in the Court itself.

Application granted.

Focus on...

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.


Legal updates

Non-payment of insurance premiums during the Coronavirus pandemic

The forced closure of many businesses as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic has had a huge impact on the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Recent reports from the Office for National Statistics state that the economy was 25% smaller in April than it was in February this year.


Legal updates

Reinstatement for property damage losses – when does it apply?

The Court of Appeal has recently considered the correct test for measuring the indemnity for property damage losses and has provided useful guidance on whether an insured needs to intend to reinstate the property to its pre-loss condition.


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