``... if it appears at the time the decision on pre-trial detention is taken that the «officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power» is liable to
intervene in the subsequent proceedings as a representative of the prosecuting authority, then he could not be regarded as independent of the parties at that preliminary stage as it is possible for him to become one of the parties at a later stage.»
A party to whom documents (or other information) were disclosed in arbitral proceedings is precluded by the implied duty of confidentiality from referring to or relying on that
information in subsequent proceedings.
In construction disputes we know that a construction consultant who prepares claims for the client can not act as an independent
expert in any subsequent proceedings, because they would have already performed the role of an advocate which would taint their independence.
... Whatever principle may be formulated for allowing secondary litigation in some circumstances, for every case in which an injustice is successfully
corrected in subsequent proceedings, there will be many more which fail only after prolonged, disruptive, wasteful and ultimately unsuccessful attempts.»
In particular, the applicant is not required to provide evidence of the type which, if
furnished in subsequent proceedings, would be required to prove all matters needed to make out the claim.
(1996) 23 EHRR 313, an exception was created by the Companies Act 1985 where Department of Trade and Industry inspectors could compel a person to answer questions, and s 434 (5) established that the answers obtained could be used in
evidence in any subsequent proceedings.
Statements made to the umpire by the parties can not be used against
them in subsequent proceedings.
Questioned by SBA about the information in the 2010/2011 edition of JUVE, he acknowledged in a letter in May 2016 that his firm had represented Volkswagen Bank in the competition dispute until a judgment of the Munich Court of Appeal in 2010, with a separate lawyer representing
it in subsequent proceedings before the Federal Supreme Court in Germany.
In subsequent proceedings the issue arose about whether the provider had «functions of a public nature» and was therefore a public authority, under HRA 1998, s 6 (3)(b).