- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Tik Tok Inc. v Rosendin Electric Inc. (Approved)
Factual and Procedural Background
This was an ex parte application by Company A in aid of an arbitration pending in the United States between Company A and Company B, made with the permission and at the request of the Arbitrator. [Para 19][Para 38][Para 39] Company A sought recognition in the State of an amended letter of request for international judicial assistance, together with orders requiring a witness with an address in the State to attend for examination before counsel and a commissioner, and ancillary directions on confidentiality, costs, service, and procedure. [Para 19][Para 41][Para 44][Para 45][Para 48][Para 49]
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the High Court had jurisdiction under Article 27 of the Model Law, section 15 of the Arbitration Act 2010, and the Rules of the Superior Courts to recognise and give effect to a foreign arbitral request for evidence from a person in the State. [Para 19][Para 23][Para 25][Para 28][Para 29]
- Whether the conditions identified in Cornec v. Morrice were satisfied, namely relevance, non-oppressiveness, protection of privilege, and admissibility in the requesting jurisdiction. [Para 73][Para 74][Para 102][Para 103]
- What procedural safeguards should accompany any order for examination, including confidentiality, service, conduct of the deposition, costs, and liberty to apply. [Para 44][Para 45][Para 60][Para 61][Para 123][Para 127]
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Cornec v. Morrice [2012] 1 I.R. 804 | Before granting assistance for foreign evidence, the Court must be satisfied that the evidence is relevant, the request is not oppressive, privilege/protection is preserved, and the evidence will be admissible in the requesting state. [Para 73][Para 74] | The Court accepted that Company A's affidavit addressed each of those four conditions and held that they were satisfied here. [Para 102][Para 103][Para 106][Para 107] |
| Narooma Ltd v. Health Service Executive [2020] IEHC 315 | The Court had previously made brief, obiter reference to the powers conferred by Article 27 of the Model Law and Order 39 of the Rules of the Superior Courts. [Para 94][Para 95] | The present Court noted that the earlier judgment did not express a concluded view on the scope of those provisions and was not directly determinative of this application. [Para 96][Para 99] |
| A and B v. C, D and E [2020] EWCA Civ 409 | The case was mentioned as a recent English authority touching on non-parties and section 44 of the Arbitration Act 1996. [Para 96] | The Court referred to it only as a point of comparison and did not rely on it for a concluded holding. [Para 96] |
| Ocean Point Development Company Limited (in Receivership) v. Patterson Bannon Architects Limited & Ors [2019] IEHC 311 | Article 27 of the Model Law permits court assistance in obtaining evidence for an arbitration, including where the request is made by a party with the arbitrator's approval. [Para 98] | The Court treated the case as supportive background only, noting that it did not decide the present jurisdictional question. [Para 98][Para 99] |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court first set out the statutory scheme: Article 27 of the Model Law allows a competent court to assist in taking evidence for an arbitration, section 15 of the Arbitration Act 2010 extends that power to arbitrations seated outside the State, section 9 identifies the High Court as the competent court, and Order 56 and Order 39 of the Rules of the Superior Courts provide the procedural mechanism. [Para 23][Para 25][Para 28][Para 29][Para 30][Para 31][Para 33][Para 34]
The Court noted that there was no directly on-point reported decision, but held that the absence of a prior identical case did not prevent the making of the requested orders. [Para 92][Para 93][Para 99]
Relying on the affidavit evidence, the Court was satisfied that the witness's evidence was relevant to the arbitration, that the request was not oppressive, that no privilege or protection was overridden, and that the evidence would be admissible in the foreign arbitration. [Para 68][Para 72][Para 74][Para 103]
The Court also accepted that confidentiality protections were appropriate because the arbitration was subject to a protective order and arbitral proceedings are ordinarily treated as confidential, subject to legal disclosure requirements. [Para 60][Para 61][Para 76][Para 77][Para 79][Para 80]
On that basis, the Court held that it had jurisdiction and that it was appropriate in the exercise of discretion to grant the requested relief, including practical directions designed to make the deposition workable and fair. [Para 104][Para 105][Para 106][Para 107][Para 133][Para 134]
Holding and Implications
GRANTED. The Court recognised and gave effect in the State to the Arbitrator's request and ordered the witness to attend for examination, with detailed safeguards on confidentiality, procedure, service, and costs. [Para 110][Para 111][Para 112][Para 114][Para 115][Para 117][Para 123][Para 124][Para 127]
The immediate effect was to enable the foreign arbitration to obtain the witness evidence sought, while preserving the witness's ability to apply to set the order aside and leaving no order as to the costs of the application; no broader precedent was expressly set. [Para 128][Para 129][Para 134][Para 135]
Alert