FIFTH BIRTHDAY REVIEW 10: THE PROVING THING SERIES: SIZE DON’T SEEM TO MATTER…

This is the last in the series looking back at  key series of posts on this blog over the past five years.  Keen observers will note that most series last for about 10 posts. When the “Proving Thing” series started in February 2016 I assumed this would be about that length. (If I had known it was going to be so long-standing I would have given it a more grandiose title – on the other hand the series does what “it says on the tin”).  However the cases just keep on giving, usually illustrating the difficulties of proving something, or a total failure to prove a basic element of a claim.  I did a review of the series in post 101 which highlighted some key points.  One interesting thing about this series is that:

  • Size does not appear to matter. The biggest firms of solicitors instructing the most eminent of silks (with the most lavish of cost budgets) can still fall down flat on the basic issue of proving things.

  • Around a third of the posts in this title could properly be entitled “Naff witness statements that should never have seen the light of day” (or “what where they thinking?).

AN UPDATE

The series continues. Since the recap at 101 we have had classic examples of failure to prove things.

  • Post 112   Berkshire Homes (Northern) Ltd v Newbury Venture Capital Ltd [2018] EWHC 938 (Ch),  a party who simply relied on a accountant’s report did not prove any loss on this basis.
  • Post 113 – poor investigation of basic facts and experts going well beyond their remit (experts going outside their remit could be another useful sub-heading in the series)
  • Post 114 – a witness of fact attempting to give expert evidence (and could not do so). This led to the conclusion that “…there is no admissible evidence of any loss.”

A failure to prove something also predominated in Post 114. This was well within the spirit of the series.

THE SERIES SO FAR