PROVING THINGS 8: DEFENDANT MUST PROVE THAT FAILURE TO WEAR A SEATBELT MADE A DIFFERENCE
The defendant bears the burden not only of proving contributory negligence but also establishing its causative relevance. The law in Syred -v- Powszecnny Zaklad Ubezpieczen (PZU) SA [2016] EWHC 254 (QB) (Mr Justice Soole) was complex, however one key point…
PROVING THINGS 7: IF YOU DON'T PROVE A LOSS YOU DON'T GET AN ORDER: DIRECTORS DON'T HAVE TO CONTRIBUTE
This occasional series on the need to prove matters by evidence has covered a wide range of cases. Today we consider company law and insolvency. In Grant -v-Ralls [2016] EWHC 243 (Ch) Mr Justice Snowden rejected a claim by liquidators…
LATE APPLICATIONS TO AMEND & WITNESS STATEMENTS DELIBERATELY NOT SERVED: THIS DOESN'T END WELL FOR THE DEFAULTING PARTY
In Birch -v- Beccanor Limited & Dixon [2016] EWHC 265 (Ch) Mr Justice Norris refused an application for late amendment. He also refused an application to adjourn in circumstances where the defendant had deliberately served witness evidence late. KEY POINTS The…
