NOTES IN RESPECT OF TALKS TO TRAINEE MANX ADVOCATES (Talk at 5pm on 18 September 2017) INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL CO-OPERATION INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL CO-OPERATION “Once we saw issues and problems through the prism of a village or nation – state, especially if we were lawyers. Now we see the challenges of our time through the world’s eye”. (Michael Kirby Through the World’s Eye 2000). “As countries at opposite ends of the world (only a lawyer would suggest that a globe can have an end), with a common heritage and common values, it is very important that we can exchange ideas and experiences and learn from each other. More specifically, both our countries have the benefit of a common law system, which has a unique combination of flexibility and principle, and which we should maintain, treasure, and promote …” (Lord Neuberger Access to Justice: Welcome Address to Australian Bar Association Biennial Conference 3 July 2017) “I am human and nothing human is foreign to me” (Roman poet Terentius quoted by Chief Justice Robert French in Sydney 21 April 2012 in Co-operation and Convergence – Judiciaries and the Profession available on the High Court of Australia website). “No man is an island, Entire of itself, Every man is a piece of the continent, A part of the main.” (John Donne, Devotions Upon Emergent Occasions and its prose (1624) Meditation 17.) “… on the principle of comity and reciprocity … in matters of bankruptcy … They [the courts in Demerara] were bound in justice to give equal effect to the certificate [of discharge granted in England] …” (The Privy Council in Odwin v Forbes (1817) 1 Buck.57) 1. Deemster Doyle in US Securities and Exchange Commission v Wyly and others (judgment 30 April 2012): “Law and International Judicial Co-operation 20. In addition to considering the Application and the terms of the Letter of Request I considered the relevant law including the Evidence (Proceedings in Other Jurisdictions) Act 1975 as extended to the Isle of Man and also the developing jurisprudence in respect of this court’s co-operation with courts exercising jurisdiction in a country or territory outside the Isle of Man. 21. This court has assisted courts, insolvency officers and others from countries outside the Isle of Man when they have requested assistance in obtaining information and evidence in the Isle of Man especially in cases of alleged wrongdoing or insolvency. 22. In Impex Services Worldwide Limited 2003-05 MLR 115 this court assisted a provisional liquidator of an English company in obtaining documents relevant to the provisional liquidator’s investigation and in examining directors in the Isle of Man. At paragraph 52 of my judgment I stated: “Here on the Isle of Man, we are all citizens of the Island but we are also citizens of the global community in which we live, work and contribute. We need to recognise our international as well as our local responsibilities. If the English High Court requires assistance then the Manx High Court, if 1 it has jurisdiction and subject to any necessary safeguards, should not, in a proper case, be slow to provide such assistance.” 23. At paragraph 82 of my judgment in Impex Services Worldwide Limited I added: “82. Friendly and sophisticated jurisdictions, which respect the rule of law and human rights, need to be aware that if things go wrong in their jurisdiction, and persons in the Isle of Man have information that would assist them, then the Manx courts, in a proper case and, if necessary, subject to suitable safeguards, will offer judicial co-operation and assistance when that is reasonably requested by the judicial authority in that friendly jurisdiction. When the call for help comes, the Manx courts will, in proper cases, answer the call positively and provide the necessary co-operation and assistance.” 24. In Secilpar 2003-05 MLR 352 I granted orders in effect requiring the production of information regarding the beneficial ownership of companies incorporated under the laws of the Isle of Man on the basis that in the circumstances of that case there was a greater public interest in ordering disclosure than in preserving confidentiality. At paragraph 49 of my judgment I stated: “Disclosure of the information in this case may provide considerable assistance to the victim of a potential wrongdoing and would enable the victim to further assert its legal rights in Portugal and would assist the administration of justice there.” 25. In Tomlinson (judgment delivered 26th July 2006) at paragraph 21 of the judgment I referred to various authorities including Brunning (judgment 7th March 2006 giving recognition and assistance to a Chapter 7 trustee in bankruptcy appointed by the United States Bankruptcy Court) and stated: “It is well established that this court has wide powers to assist courts and insolvency officers from other jurisdictions.” 26. In Hafner (judgment 16th June 2006) the Appeal Division at paragraph 56 of the judgment referred to the fact that we lived in a time where: “responsible jurisdictions are taking a global approach and assisting other jurisdictions in relation to investigations in respect of potential wrongdoings or in relation to cross-border insolvencies.” 27. In Wine (judgment delivered 29th May 2007) I stated the following: “71. This court is not in a position to determine whether Mr Wine is attempting to hide assets from Mrs Wine. For the avoidance of any doubt however I should make this jurisdiction’s position crystal clear in respect of those who endeavour to use this Island to facilitate wrong doing. 2 72. It is not the policy of this jurisdiction to support a concept of blanket confidentiality to cloak irregular financial dealings (Tucker 1987-89 MLR 220 at 226-227). Those endeavouring to make use of the equivalent of Harry Potter’s invisibility cloak to prevent sight of information or documents regarding the proceeds of wrong doing will find, to their disappointment, that it does not work in this jurisdiction. 73. This jurisdiction does not exist to assist those who seek to evade their responsibilities to their wives. This jurisdiction does not exist to assist wrongdoers to hide their assets or the proceeds of their wrongdoings. This jurisdiction does not exist to assist those who seek to evade their creditors or their taxes. This jurisdiction does not exist to assist wrongdoers to evade foreign courts, foreign insolvency officers or foreign regulatory authorities. 74. It is the policy of this jurisdiction to assist parties, foreign courts, foreign regulatory authorities and foreign insolvency officers, where appropriate and subject to any suitable safeguards, in the provision of full information and documentation to enable a proper, just and fair determination of any issue or dispute in the principal jurisdiction of such issue or dispute.” 28. In Jones (Common Law Division CLA 2009/053) I made an order on the 16 June 2009 for the production of evidence under the Evidence (Proceedings in Other Jurisdictions) Act 1975 (an Act of Parliament) as extended to the Isle of Man by the Evidence (Proceedings in Other Jurisdictions) (Isle of Man) Order 1979 by way of assistance to the Family Division of the High Court of England and Wales. In that case certain parts of the request were ordered to be struck out in red.” 2. See Impex Services Worldwide Limited 2003-05 MLR 115, Lombard Manx Limited v Spirit of Montpelier Limited (Deemster Doyle’s judgment 11 December 2014), Cambridge Gas/Navigator [2006] UKPC 26, HIH Casualty and General Insurance Ltd [2008] UKHL 21, Liquidation of Founding Partners Global Ltd [2005] SC (Bda) 36 Comm (29 July 2009), Rubin v Eurofinance SA [2012] UKSC 46, Pattni v Ali [2007] 2 WLR 102, Pro Swing Inc v Elta Golf Inc (2006) SCR 612, Miller v Gianne [2007] CILR 1, Brunei Investment Agency v Fidelis Nominees Limited [2008] JRC 152, Deemster Doyle’s judgment in MK Investments Limited (22 August 2008), Lord Neuberger Insolvency, Internationalism & Supreme Court Judgments (11 November 2009), Deemster Doyle’s judgment in Comhfhorbairt (26 August 2010), Teare J’s judgment in Global Distressed Alpha Fund 1 Limited Partnership v P T Bakrie Investindo [2011] EWHC 256 (Comm), International Influence on the Common Law (11 November 2014) Lord Toulson, Kobuleti Shipping Company Limited (Appeal Division 11 January 2000), Singularis Holdings Limited v PricewaterhouseCoopers [2014] UKPC 36 and Kenichi Machida (Deemster Doyle’s judgment 4 December 2014). 3. Chief Justice Kawaley of Bermuda referred to Impex and The Spirit of Montpelier in Uprise Corporation Limited v Mingyuan Medicare Development Company Limited [2016] SC (Bda) 28 Civ (22 March 2016) at paragraphs 44 and 45. At footnote 6 to the judgment Chief Justice Kawaley referred to Impex and Singularis and stated: 3 “… based on far more refined reasoning than my own first instance ramblings, the Privy Council majority found the relevant common law power did exist after all, approving Deemster Doyle’s brave decision to be a “bold spirit” rather than a “timorous soul” in Re Impex.” 4. See also Cross-Border Judicial Cooperation in Offshore Litigation (The British Offshore World) editors Messrs Kawaley, Bolton and Mayor. 5. See Re Apcoa Parking Holdings GmbH [2014] EWHC 3849 (Ch) in respect of making insolvency orders to be recognised elsewhere. See Lord Mance’s lecture Jurisdiction and Justiciability (31 March 2015) where at paragraph 1 Lord Mance spoke of the advantage of gaining information and experience from other jurisdictions. Lord Mance also referred to the jurisdiction in insolvency and the principle of universality of winding up (see paragraphs 21-24). Lord Mance referred to Singularis and at paragraph 23 stated: “The majority thought that, even after Rubin v Eurofinance, the principle of universality still exists, where a company is in compulsory – though not voluntary – winding up, to the extent of enabling a common law court of one country to assist that of another country by ordering disclosure of relevant information or documentation.