## Facts

- American asbestos manufacturers litigated insurance coverage disputes in a California state court involving London-market excess (“umbrella”) policies.
- The California court issued letters rogatory seeking English court assistance to obtain evidence located in England.
- The requested assistance included (1) oral examination of three directors of London insurance brokers and (2) production by the brokers of specified insurance-related documents, including written instructions to place policies and exemplar umbrella policies for defined periods.
- The English High Court ordered the directors to give oral testimony before examiners and ordered production of the requested document categories.
- The Court of Appeal upheld the oral-examination orders and modified the document-production orders in part, but accepted that document requests could be framed by defined categories.
- The brokers and directors appealed to the House of Lords, challenging (1) the propriety of compelling oral testimony and (2) whether the statute permitted production orders framed by classes of documents rather than item-by-item identification.

## Issues

1. When granting assistance to a foreign court under the Evidence (Proceedings in Other Jurisdictions) Act 1975, should an English court generally accept that the requested oral evidence is relevant and admissible in the foreign proceedings absent a clear reason to refuse?
2. Does the Act’s limitation to “particular documents specified in the order” permit production orders described by sufficiently defined classes of documents, or does it require each document to be individually identified?

## Decision

- The House of Lords dismissed the appeals.
- The court held that, in responding to letters rogatory, the English court should generally proceed on the basis that the foreign court’s request reflects evidence considered relevant and admissible under foreign law, subject to English limits (e.g., oppression, privilege, public policy).
- The court held that “particular documents specified in the order” does not require listing each document individually; production may be ordered for clearly defined classes of documents that are practically identifiable.
- The oral examination orders and the document-production orders (as modified by the Court of Appeal) were allowed to stand.

## Legal Principles

- In executing letters rogatory under the Evidence (Proceedings in Other Jurisdictions) Act 1975, English courts ordinarily defer to the requesting court on relevance and admissibility, intervening mainly to police statutory limits and English protections.
- The statutory phrase limiting production to “particular documents specified in the order” is satisfied where the order defines a limited, specific, and identifiable class of documents; item-by-item identification is not required.
- The Act bars open-ended document demands, but permits well-circumscribed categories defined by factors such as subject matter, time period, and relationship to the foreign proceedings.
- Objections based on oppression, privilege, or other English-law limitations may justify narrowing or controlling production, and privilege questions may be determined at the production stage on a document-by-document basis.

## Conclusion

The House of Lords confirmed that English courts should generally give effect to foreign letters rogatory by compelling oral testimony and ordering production of clearly defined categories of documents, while retaining control to prevent oppressive demands and to protect privileges and other English-law limits under the Evidence (Proceedings in Other Jurisdictions) Act 1975.


In re Asbestos Ins. Coverage Cases, [1985] 1 W.L.R. 331 (H.L.)