“HIS WITNESS STATEMENT … CONTAINED A GREAT DEAL OF ANALYSIS, SUBMISSION AND COMMENTARY ON DOCUMENTS”
Because of the imminent changes in the rules in the Business and Property courts it is an opportune time to see how often the basic principles of witness evidence are not being observed. We see this in the judgment in YJB Port Ltd v M&A Pharmachem Ltd & Anor  EWHC 42 (Ch) where a witness statement contained much that was not admissible.
THE JUDGMENT ON THE DEFENDANT’S WITNESS EVIDENCE
The Defendants called one witness of fact: Mr Benjamin Miller. Mr Miller is a qualified solicitor, described as a consultant solicitor with Setfords Solicitors, the law firm on the record for the Defendants in these proceedings. He also became CEO of both companies in February 2020. His involvement in their commercial and operational activities stretches back over a decade. His witness statement ran to 69 paragraphs and contained a great deal of analysis, submission and commentary on documents.
In terms of meaningful factual evidence, Mr Miller had little to contribute save to confirm that the parlous state of the Defendants’ current business makes it highly improbable that they will market or launch ST. As regards the Confidential Information, he confirmed that the Defendants have no access to it or use for it. He referred to damaged or destroyed company servers (preventing access to such information) and subsequent restructuring of the public health care procurement regime, through introduction of Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) and use of approved formulary lists of products, which was said to have rendered such contact information stale, otiose and valueless to M&A or CDM at the present time or in future.