FOOTBALL CLUB’S APPLICATION DOES NOT GET EXTRA TIME: APPLICATION FOR RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS IN ORDER TO DISPUTE AUTHENTICITY OF DOCUMENTS IS REFUSED
In UTB LLC v Sheffield United Ltd [2019] EWHC 1377 (Ch) Mr Justice Fancourt refused Sheffield United’s application for relief from sanctions so as to allow it to dispute the authenticity of documents during the course of a trial. “A…
PROVING THINGS 154: CLOSE CONNECTION IN TIME DOES NOT ESTABLISH CAUSATION IN A CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CASE: EXPERTS STRAYING BEYOND THEIR AREA OF EXPERTISE
In AXO v Salisbury NHS Foundation Trust [2019] EWHC 1454 (QB) Mrs Justice YIP considered the issue of causation in a clinical negligence case. Liability was admitted but the claimant failed to establish causation. THE CASE The claimant child was…
FINDINGS OF FACT AND THE TASK OF THE TRIAL JUDGE: A REASONED DETERMINATION OF THE DISPUTE ON THE EVIDENCE AT TRIAL – NOT A SEARCH FOR “THE TRUTH”
There has been a spate of cases recently relating to appeals of findings of fact by a trial judge. There are major problems in such appeals, this is illustrated by the judgment of Mr Justice Andrew Baker in Auliffe &…
THE DANGERS OF A LAWYER GIVING EVIDENCE: A “SOMEWHAT STRANGLED VERSION” OF THE SOURCE OF INFORMATION & BELIEF: SUMMARY JUDGMENT APPLICATION DISMISSED BECAUSE OF PAUCITY OF FIRST-HAND EVIDENCE
There are numerous posts on the blog about the need for first-hand evidence to be given, and the dangers of a lawyer making witness statements. These risks are exemplified in the judgment of Chief Master Marsh today in The David…
PROCEDURAL ISSUES ON COMMITTAL APPLICATIONS: GETTING THE PROCEDURE RIGHT
The judgment of Mr Justice Warby in Quantum Tuning Ltd v White [2019] EWHC 1376 (QB) highlights some errors made in a committal application. Fortunately for the claimant in that case the procedural errors were overlooked and contempt established. Nevertheless…
THE EXPERT WITNESS AND THE “HIRED GUN”: THE FACT THAT EXPERTS WERE VERY EXPENSIVE (AND FEES WERE FIXED IN RETROSPECT) DID NOT MAKE THEM UNRELIABLE
In O’Leary v Mercy University Hospital Cork Ltd [2019] IESC 48 the Supreme Court of Ireland made some telling observations on the role of the expert witness. Problems with experts are clearly not confined to one jurisdiction. OPENING OBSERVATIONS OF…
GUIDANCE ON INSTRUCTING EXPERTS (4): THE SINGLE JOINT EXPERT IS NOT A DEMIGOD
This blog looked recently at the case of O v B-M [2019] EWFC B23 where the trial judge was critical of a jointly instructed expert’s attempt to find facts and state that something was “proven by overwhelming evidence”. That case contains…
THE APPOINTMENT OF A SINGLE JOINT EXPERT DOES NOT DISPLACE THE TRIAL JUDGE: EXPERTS SHOULD NOT “OVERREACH”
In O v B-M [2019] EWFC B23 Mr Recorder Allen QC noted that a Single Joint Expert had gone beyond their remit in making findings of “fact”. The parties do not “abdicate” findings to a single joint experts and the…
GUIDANCE ON INSTRUCTING EXPERTS (3): THE INSTRUCTION OF EXPERTS: THE CIVIL JUSTICE COUNCIL GUIDANCE
We are returning to the Civil Justice Council “Guidance for the instruction of experts in civil claims”. This time the guidance on the instruction of experts. Remember this guidance is incorporated into the rules. It provides a essential information as…
GUIDANCE ON INSTRUCTING EXPERTS (2): THE APPOINTMENT OF EXPERTS: THE CIVIL JUSTICE COUNCIL GUIDANCE
The importance of the guidance given by the Civil Justice Council “Guidance for the instruction of experts in civil claims” is often overlooked. Not only are few people aware of exist of the guidance, fewer still are aware that it…
GUIDANCE ON INSTRUCTING EXPERTS (1): GUIDANCE FROM THE LAWYERIST: “MUCH LIKE A COWBOY HERDING CATTLE”
Instructing expert witnesses is an important step in many actions. The advantages, and problems, caused by experts are well known and widely reported recently. This is one of the matters that crosses boundaries and gives rise to common problems across…
WHO IS AN EXPERT? NOW THERE’S A QUESTION: DEFINITIONS OF “EXPERT” CONSIDERED
The collapse of the “carbon credit fraud” prosecution today because an “expert” was found out to have no actual expertise leads to consideration of how exactly the courts define an “expert” . This does not give rise to a straightforward…
“THIS WAS A DECISION TAKEN ON FACTS UNSUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE”: MASSIVE INCOMPETENCE BY THE PAROLE BOARD: WHERE TWO CASES GET CONFUSED – HOW CAN WE SLEEP AT NIGHT?
It is unusual for this blog to look at decisions relating to Parole Board. However the careful gathering and analysis of evidence is central to every litigator’s role. A remarkable set of facts is outlined in the judgment of HHJ…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 47: THE FORMAL (AND MANDATORY) REQUIREMENTS OF A WITNESS STATEMENT: A CHECKLIST
Another short post caused by a discussion on Twitter about the number of witness statements that fail to comply with the most basic, mandatory, obligations in the Rules. The formal requirements of a witness statement are overlooked at the litigator’s…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 46: HOW TO INSTRUCT COUNSEL: HINTS AND TIPS FROM THE INTERNET
There is an ongoing debate going on on Twitter at the moment about “how to instruct counsel”. More particularly the problems caused by “instructions” being sent in a chain of emails (or other electronic communication) with major difficulties in finding…
PROVING THINGS 152: CLAIMANT, BRINGING ACTION 50 YEARS AFTER THE EVENT, NOT QUITE THROWN TO THE WOLVES, BUT…
Davies v Wolverhampton Wanderers Football Club (1986) Ltd [2019] EWHC 1252 (Ch) is an example of a case that rested on a very thin strand of , as it turned out extremely flimsy, evidence. “He is giving evidence about events…
PROVING THINGS 151: DEPENDENCY IN A FATAL ACCIDENT ACT CLAIM: ADULT CHILD DEPENDANTS RECEIVE DAMAGES FOR FUTURE CONTRIBUTIONS TO WEDDINGS AND TOWARDS THEIR FIRST HOME
In AB v KL [2019] EWHC 611 (QB) David Edwards QC (sitting as a judge of the High Court) considered the nature of the evidence needed to establish damages under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976. It is also important both…
ADVICE FROM ACROSS THE PROFESSION AND AROUND THE WORLD: “CROWD SOURCED” GUIDANCE: THANKS FOR ALL THE TWEETS
There have been a number of occasions when I have put contributions from people on Twitter on this blog. This is usually in response to specific questions and issues raised. People have been generous in their time and Advice. I…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 45: THE COURT CAN REDUCE THE NUMBER OF WITNESSES AND EVIDENCE BEFORE TRIAL
We are looking at CPR 33.2(3) in relation to the reducing of witnesses or identifying issues prior to trial. THE RULE CPR 32.2(3) “(3) The court may give directions – (a) identifying or limiting the issues to which factual…
TALES FROM THE APIL CONFERENCE 4: TIME ESTIMATES FOR HEARINGS (AND WHY YOU SHOULD VISIT KINGSTON UPON HULL)
There were difficult choices to be made when delegates selected their particular lectures at the recent APIL conference. In a show of northern solidarity (and because I am interested in these kind of things) I went to see District Judge…