Cape Intermediate Holdings Limited & Anor v Peter D Protopapas

Under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, r 35.1, expert evidence may be admitted where it is reasonably required to resolve proceedings justly. Evidence need not be strictly necessary if it would materially assist the court. In an international jurisdictional dispute, expert evidence on foreign law may reasonably be required where it assists the court to understand the legal context in which the foreign court has acted and supports the proper consideration of judicial comity. The court should weigh the importance of the proceedings, procedural prejudice, and the additional cost of the evidence.

The claimants sought urgent declaratory and injunctive relief concerning the effect in England of the defendant’s appointment by a South Carolina court as receiver in relation to the claimants and their worldwide assets and business. The proceedings had been expedited for trial before Sir Anthony Mann. The defendant did not participate in the English proceedings and maintained that the South Carolina courts had exclusive jurisdiction.

The claimants applied for permission to rely on expert evidence from a former South Carolina federal judge concerning South Carolina law. The evidence was intended to provide general legal background rather than address the specific facts or ongoing South Carolina proceedings. The issue was whether that evidence was reasonably required to resolve the English proceedings justly.

1. Application allowed. The claimants were permitted to rely on the proposed expert evidence of South Carolina law.
2. Under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, r 35.1, the court must restrict expert evidence to evidence reasonably required to resolve proceedings justly. Evidence may satisfy that standard even if it is not strictly necessary, provided that it would assist the court materially.
3. The proposed evidence would assist the court in applying judicial comity. The English court should act with deference and respect when international legal systems come into conflict, and an understanding of the legal context in South Carolina in which orders had been made and actions taken would assist the trial judge.
4. In deciding what was reasonably required, the court considered the importance of the case to the claimants, their wish to place potentially useful material before the court, the defendant’s non-participation and resulting absence of procedural prejudice, and the additional cost of approximately £30,000. That cost was likely to be insignificant in the context of the proceedings as a whole.