Cyprus: No pharmacal orders when there is an infringement of the “Mere Witness” Rule.

In the English case AXA EQUITY & LAW LIFE –V- NATIONAL WESTMINISTER BANK (1998) CHC 117 (which has been adopted and followed by Cypriot Courts), the Court refused disclosure on the basis that the claimant had already made out a prima facie case against the accountancy firm they were suing, and did not require Norwich Pharmacal disclosure to determine whether a case could be brought against them. The application therefore infringed the “mere witness rule” as the banks were compellable witness.

In the ARAB MONETARY FUND –V- HASHIM (No. 5) 2 ALL ER 911 (which has been also adopted and followed by Cyprus Courts), has been inter alia held, that the Norwich Pharmacal case in no authority for imposing upon “mixed up” third parties a general obligation to give discovery of information, when the identity of the defendant wrongdoers is already known.

Cyprus Profile

articles | 19 December 2019 | Soteris Pittas & Co LLC