Civil Litigation Brief ®
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Membership Plans
  • Webinars
  • Login
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers
Browse: Home » 2026 » July » 03
THROWBACK FRIDAY: "WHICH WITNESS WILL BE BELIEVED? IS IT ALL A LOTTERY? (JULY 2014): ISSUES OF WITNESS CREDIBILITY CONSIDERED

THROWBACK FRIDAY: “WHICH WITNESS WILL BE BELIEVED? IS IT ALL A LOTTERY? (JULY 2014): ISSUES OF WITNESS CREDIBILITY CONSIDERED

July 3, 2026 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Witness statements

This week we go back 12 years to look at one of the recurring themes of this blog: witness credibility.   We looked at a judgment which was all about the judge’s assessment of the witnesses. This was made more difficult…

EXPERT WATCH 54 :  THE DEPUTY MASTER SHOULD NOT HAVE IGNORED THE EXPERT EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COURT:  IT WAS RELEVANT AND ADDRESSED THE CENTRAL ISSUE

EXPERT WATCH 54 : THE DEPUTY MASTER SHOULD NOT HAVE IGNORED THE EXPERT EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COURT: IT WAS RELEVANT AND ADDRESSED THE CENTRAL ISSUE

July 3, 2026 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

We are looking at a case where, on appeal, the judge found that a Deputy Master fell into error by failing to take into account relevant expert evidence provided by a claimant.   The judge held that the Master had misunderstood…

A SOLICITOR SHOULD JUST NOT BE SAYING THIS IS IN A WITNESS STATEMENT: IT "STRAYED WELL BEYOND WHAT SHE COULD LEGALLY GIVE EVIDENCE ABOUT FROM HER OWN KNOWLEDGE INCLUDED HEARSAY FROM AN UNNAMED SOURCE AND INCLUDED STATEMENTS OF OPINION WHICH SHE DID NOT HAVE THE EXPERTISE TO GIVE..."

A SOLICITOR SHOULD JUST NOT BE SAYING THIS IS IN A WITNESS STATEMENT: IT “STRAYED WELL BEYOND WHAT SHE COULD LEGALLY GIVE EVIDENCE ABOUT FROM HER OWN KNOWLEDGE INCLUDED HEARSAY FROM AN UNNAMED SOURCE AND INCLUDED STATEMENTS OF OPINION WHICH SHE DID NOT HAVE THE EXPERTISE TO GIVE…”

July 3, 2026 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Witness statements

There are numerous cases reported on this blog where judges have been critical of the “evidence” given by solicitors in witness statements.  In many cases, even on cursory examination, it transpires that the lawyer is not in a position to…

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email. Subscription notifies you of a new post, it does not give you access to members' content.

Join 12.3K other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • THROWBACK FRIDAY: “WHICH WITNESS WILL BE BELIEVED? IS IT ALL A LOTTERY? (JULY 2014): ISSUES OF WITNESS CREDIBILITY CONSIDERED
  • EXPERT WATCH 54 : THE DEPUTY MASTER SHOULD NOT HAVE IGNORED THE EXPERT EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COURT: IT WAS RELEVANT AND ADDRESSED THE CENTRAL ISSUE
  • A SOLICITOR SHOULD JUST NOT BE SAYING THIS IS IN A WITNESS STATEMENT: IT “STRAYED WELL BEYOND WHAT SHE COULD LEGALLY GIVE EVIDENCE ABOUT FROM HER OWN KNOWLEDGE INCLUDED HEARSAY FROM AN UNNAMED SOURCE AND INCLUDED STATEMENTS OF OPINION WHICH SHE DID NOT HAVE THE EXPERTISE TO GIVE…”
  • COST BITES 407: COURT OF APPEAL OVERTURNS DECISION STRIKING OUT POINTS OF DISPUTE BECAUSE OF NON-AINSWORTH COMPLIANCE: JUDGMENT GIVEN TODAY
  • THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 85: THERE IS NO “FREE PASS” WHEN AN ACTION IS BROUGHT ON BEHALF OF MULTIPLE CLAIMANTS: “THERE IS A DEFINITE SENSE OF THE CLAIMANTS THRASHING ABOUT, TRYING TO FIND ANY ISSUES WHICH COULD BE TRIED WHICH AVOIDED ANY INVESTIGATION OF ANY FACTS.”

Top Posts

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: AS STRONGLY WORDED A REFUSAL AS I HAVE SEEN: THE CONCEPT "DOES NOT EMBODY A PRINCIPLE OF "BREACH NOW REPENT LATER"
THE ONLINE PROCEDURE (RULES AND PRACTICE DIRECTIONS) RULES 2026 COME INTO FORCE ON THE 7th SEPTEMBER: HERE IS A SUMMARY (AND THE RULES THEMSLVES)
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND LITIGATION: AN UPDATE ON CONSULTATION FINDINGS FROM THE CIVIL JUSTICE COUNCIL
WHERE THINGS WENT WRONG IN LITIGATION (AND STOPPING IT HAPPENING TO YOU) 2: ADVISING A CLIENT THAT THEY ARE NOT LIABLE FOR COSTS BECAUSE PROCEEDINGS HAVE NOT BEEN SERVED
A SOLICITOR SHOULD JUST NOT BE SAYING THIS IS IN A WITNESS STATEMENT: IT "STRAYED WELL BEYOND WHAT SHE COULD LEGALLY GIVE EVIDENCE ABOUT FROM HER OWN KNOWLEDGE INCLUDED HEARSAY FROM AN UNNAMED SOURCE AND INCLUDED STATEMENTS OF OPINION WHICH SHE DID NOT HAVE THE EXPERTISE TO GIVE..."

Archives

Blogroll

  • Fatal Accident Law
  • Legal Futures
  • Personal injury: Liability and Damages

Books

  • Munkman & Exall on Damages for Personal Injuries and Death 15th ed
  • The APIL Guide to Fatal Accidents 4th edition

Useful Links

  • Buntools (for preparing PDF Bundles)
  • Kings Chambers
  • Kings Chambers Costs & Litigation Funding
  • Kings Chambers Serious Injury
  • The Civil Procedure Rules
  • The Law Society Gazette
  • The National Archives Recently Published Judgments
  • The Senior Court Costs Office Guide 2025
  • www.Bailii.org

Copyright

© Gordon Exall, Exall Legal Training, Civil Litigation Brief, 2013-2026. Unauthorised use and or duplication of the material contained on this blog without permission is strictly prohibited.
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.

To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Membership Terms and Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Advertising Policy
  • Copyright
  • Legal Disclaimer

Copyright © 2026 Civil Litigation Brief ®

Powered by Big Yellow Workshop

Loading Comments...

You must be logged in to post a comment.