AT&T Istel Ltd v Tully

Facts

The plaintiffs had a judgment and an order for the disclosure of dealings with assets. Tully refused parts of the disclosure. He said the answers would tend to incriminate him in criminal proceedings.

Issue

Does the privilege against self-incrimination excuse a refusal to disclose assets under a court order?

Held

No, on these facts. The House of Lords held that the privilege did not justify the refusal where the disclosure was protected from being used in a criminal prosecution. Lord Templeman treated the claim as an attempt to keep assets out of reach, not as a real need of the privilege.

Principle

The privilege is for a real and appreciable risk of a criminal charge. It is not a general right of silence in civil discovery. A fence around later criminal use can answer the claim.

Why it matters

Blunt v Park Lane Hotel states the privilege. Tully states its limit. It still does not apply to an accused giving evidence about the offence charged.

For study only. By lanbuk.com. Always check current sources and consult a qualified professional.