COURT UPHOLDS TRIAL JUDGE’S DECISION NOT TO ALLOW A WITNESS TO GIVE “SUPPLEMENTARY EVIDENCE”: THE WITNESS STATEMENT IS USUALLY THE START AND FINISH OF EVIDENCE IN CHIEF
The judgment of Mrs Justice Heather Williams in Lydford v Skinner [2021] EWHC 3783 (QB) could well appear in the “Proving Things” series. A claimant’s action for damages for personal injury failed because he failed to establish that an occupier was…
PROVING THINGS 241: “IT IS EXTRAORDINARY HOW MUCH OF THE CASE WAS BEING ‘PATCHED UP’ AS THE TRIAL WENT ALONG”
The judgment of HHJ Luba KC in Ibrahim v London Borough Of Haringey & Anor [2022] EW Misc 9 (CC) shows a surprising approach to evidence on the part of the both sides. “Given the nominal value of the claim,…
WEBINAR ON CARE, AIDS & APPLIANCES CLAIMS AFTER MUYEPA -v- THE MINISTRY OF DEFENCE: 18th NOVEMBER 2022
I have already written three times about the judgment of Mr Justice Cotter in Muyepa v Ministry of Defence [2022] EWHC 2648 (KB). I have not explored in detail the important observations in that judgment in relation to claiming, and presenting,…
EXPERTS SHOULD CONSTANTLY REMIND THEMSELVES THROUGHOUT THE LITIGATION THAT THEY ARE NOT PART OF THE LITIGANT’S “TEAM”: JUDGE CRITICAL OF PARTISAN APPROACH
We are, again, mining the judgment of Mr Justice Cotter in Muyepa v Ministry of Defence [2022] EWHC 2648 (KB). This time in relation to the judge’s comments and findings in relation to the expert evidence, in particular the non-medical evidence…
FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY: WHERE 3% OF THE CLAIMED DAMAGES ARE AWARDED THE WHOLE CLAIM IS DEFINITELY TAINTED
We are returning to the judgment of Mr Justice Cotter in Muyepa v Ministry of Defence [2022] EWHC 2648 (KB). The judgment recounts the history and detail of the legislation and principles governing fundamental dishonesty before applying them to the facts…
WITNESS CREDIBILITY AND A FINDING OF FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY: “BUT WHAT OF THE MENDACIOUS WITNESS?”
In Muyepa v Ministry of Defence [2022] EWHC 2648 (KB) Mr Justice Cotter set out detailed considerations for assessing witness credibility. Here we look at the description of the process of analysing the credibility of the witnesses. “But what…
TWO ISSUES: WITNESS CREDIBILITY: ATTEMPTING TO RE-OPEN A JUDGMENT ON THE BASIS OF OMISSIONS IN THE JUDGMENT: ADVOCATES NEED TO CONSIDER THE POSITION CAREFULLY
There are two aspects of the judgment of Mr Justice Mostyn in Cazalet v Abu-zalaf [2022] EWFC 119 that are of general interest to litigators. Firstly the judge’s observations as to witness credibility. Secondly the observations in relation to re-opening…
“BOILERPLATE” STATEMENTS OF THE LAW MUST BE TREATED WITH CIRCUMSPECTION: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION
In A (Children) (Pool of Perpetrators), Re [2022] EWCA Civ 1348 Lady Justice King set out a note of warning about cases where agreed notes of the relevant law are relied on. It may be better for the law to…
OUR OLD FRIEND THE ABSENT WITNESSES: WHAT INFERENCES CAN AND SHOULD THE COURT DRAW? THREE DIFFERENT APPROACHES
We are returning to a decision looked and before, and a familiar issue to this blog, in looking again at the judgment HHJ Stephen Davies (sitting as a High Court judge) in Thomas Barnes & Sons Plc v Blackburn with Darwen…
ONCE AGAIN: COMMENTARY AND COMMENT IN A WITNESS STATEMENT: IT NEVER HELPS (THE CLIENT) AND IS ALMOST ALWAYS HARMFUL
We see a familiar story in the judgment of HHJ Stephen Davies (sitting as a High Court judge) in Thomas Barnes & Sons Plc v Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council [2022] EWHC 2598 (TCC). The witness statements of the claimant…
PROVING THINGS 240: CLAIMANT FAILS TO PROVE CAUSE OF AN ACCIDENT: PERMISSION TO APPEAL REFUSED
There are many edicts warning against reliance upon judgments that concern permission to appeal. However the judgment of Mr Justice Fordham in Harrison v TUI UK Ltd [2022] EWHC 2557 (KB) is of interest in the “Proving Things” series and…
PROCEDURAL AND EVIDENTIAL PROBLEMS WHEN REPRESENTING FOREIGN DEFENDANTS: WITNESSES COULD NOT GIVE EVIDENCE BY VIDEO LINK: AN INCORRECT TRANSLATION OF A REPORT HAD BEEN PROVIDED
The judgment of HHJ Howells in Evans v R&V Allgemeine Verischerung AG [2022] EWHC 2436 (QB) shows the difficulties that can occur when representing foreign defendants. The defendant was not permitted to allow witnesses to give video evidence from abroad. …
PROVING THINGS 239: THE APPROPRIATE APPROACH TO LOSS OF EARNINGS WHEN A CLAIMANT IS DISABLED
We are looking again at at the judgment of David Allan KC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) in Riley v Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust [2022] EWHC 2417 (KB). This time in relation to the claim for future loss…
CHOOSING AN EXPERT: AN ACADEMIC OR PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE: HOW WILL THEY PERFORM WHEN THEY GET THE BIT BETWEEN THEIR TEETH?
One of the difficult issues that has to be faced when instructing experts is whether to choose academic qualifications or practical experience. This issue can be seen in the judgment of HHJ Melissa Clarke (sitting as a High Court Judge)…
TRANSFERRING A CASE FROM THE PROTOCOL TO PART 7: THE APPROPRIATE TEST CONSIDERED
I am grateful to Jamie Carpenter KC for sending me a copy of the judgment in The London Borough of Islington -v- Borous [2022] EWCA Civ 1242, a The case was looked at yesterday. Here I want to consider the…
COURT OF APPEAL DECISION ON THE ROAD TRAFFIC PROTOCOL: INSURERS SHOULD KNOW THE RULES, AND CAN’T COMPLAIN WHEN THEY ARE APPLIED
In The London Borough of Islington -v- Borous [2022] EWCA Civ 1242 the Court of Appeal rejected two appeals from defendants in relation to car hire/replacement charges where damages were considered within the Road Traffic Protocol. The judgment contains a detailed…
FAILING TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS FOR WITNESS STATEMENTS: A PARTY WAS NOT “NIT PICKING”
In McKinney Plant & Safety Ltd v Construction Industry Training Board [2022] EWHC 2361 (Ch) Richard Farnhill (sitting as a Deputy Judge of the Chancery Division) considered the appropriate response where a party fails to comply with the requirements for…
EXPERTS GIVING EVIDENCE DO NOT HAVE AN EXPECTATION OF ANONYMITY: MATTERS OF FREE SPEECH ARE IN ISSUE
The previous post dealt with the judgment of HHJ Richard Clarke in Hertfordshire County Council v Mother & Ors [2022] EWFC 106, in particular the critique of the expert evidence. In a subsequent judgment Hertfordshire County Council v Mother & Ors [2022]…
COURT CONSIDERS EVIDENCE OF EXPERT WHO “HAD NOT READ THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS, NOT FULLY READ THE LITERATURE… AND HAD MIS-READ AND MISINTERPRETED THE RELEVANT RESEARCH”
A powerful critique of the conduct of an expert witness can be found in the judgment of HHJ Richard Clarke in Hertfordshire County Council v Mother & Ors [2022] EWFC 106. A medical expert was found to have fallen considerably…
PROVING THINGS 237: FAILURE TO PROVE A NUISANCE: NO LOSS OF INCOME WHEN YOU WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO EARN IT
The judgment of HHJ Russen QC (sitting as a High Court Judge) in Ray v Windrush Riverside Properties Ltd [2022] EWHC 2210 (TCC) gives two examples relevant to the “Proving Things” series. Firstly the claimant failed to prove a nuisance….
PROVING THINGS 236: THE DANGERS OF ADOPTING A FORMULAIC, TICK BOX APPROACH TO EVIDENCE
The decision in Camfield & Ors v Uyiekpen & Anor (HOUSING – RENT REPAYMENT ORDER – evidence – pro forma witness statements) [2022] UKUT 234 (LC) is a working example of the dangers of “tick box” evidence. “This case…
THE ROLE OF THE EXPERT WITNESS IN FINDING FACTS AND ASSESSING CREDIBILITY
The recent posts on the assessment of witness credibility led an expert witness to enquire whether it was the function of an expert to comment on issues relating to credibility. There have been a number of cases where judges have…
MORE ON WITNESS EVIDENCE: CREDIBILITY IS MORE THAN DEMEANOUR: PLAUSABILITY “IS ALSO THE HALLMARK OF THE CONFIDENCE TRICKSTER DOWN THE AGES”
The previous post looked at witness credibility and the Gestmin principles. Litigators will also benefit enormously from reading the talk given at Bristol University Law School in December 2014 by Mr Justice Mostyn “The Craft of Judging and Legal Reasoning”. …
WITNESS CREDIBILITY: A SUMMARY OF THE APPROACH IN GESTMIN
A post last week dealt with issues relating to the judicial assessment of credibility. Here we look at one aspect of that in more detail. That is the decision in Gestmin SGPS SA v Credit Suisse (UK) Ltd & Anor…
THE SOURCE OF INFORMATION AND BELIEF: AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF ANY WITNESS STATEMENT: 10 KEY POINTS
This week the blog looks at some basic procedural issues. Today we are looking at witness statements, in particular the mandatory requirement that a witness give the source of their information or belief. There are many cases where this basic…
JUST BECAUSE A MATTER IS TECHNICALLY COMPLICATED DOES NOT MEAN THAT EXPERTS NEED ATTEND TRIAL
In Siemens Mobility Ltd v High Speed Two (HS2) Ltd [2022] EWHC 2190 (TCC) Mrs Justice O’Farrell considered an argument that the technical issues that arose in an action led to the need for experts to attend court. This argument…
WITNESS CREDIBILITY IN CIVIL LITIGATION: A REMINDER OF SOME KEY POINTS
Many, if not most, civil cases that get to trial rest on issues of witness credibility rather than issues of law. These are the cases and decisions that rarely make the law reports, but do reflect the underlying reality of…
AN EXPERT WHO TENDED TOWARDS BEING AN ADVOCATE: YOU SAID SOMETHING DIFFERENT IN ANOTHER CASE: THE NEED FOR A MEASURED RESPONSE
It may be indicative that there are such a large number of cases where judges have criticised experts for veering towards advocacy that I sometimes hesitate as to whether they merit writing about. However such a tendency was noted by…
PROVING THINGS 235: PROVING SERVICE: COUNCIL’S WHOLESALE FAILURE TO SERVE CLAIM FORMS PROPERLY: ATTEMPTS AT PERSONAL SERVICE WERE A PREREQUISITE TO SERVICE BY ALTERNATIVE MEANS
An important point as to service of the claim form arose in the judgment of Mr Justice Nicklin in Thurrock Council v Stokes & Ors [2022] EWHC 1998 (QB). The claimant had issued proceedings against multiple defendants. It obtained an…
THERE IS NO OBLIGATION ON A CLAIMANT TO FILE A REPLY: THE BURDEN OF PROOF REMAINS WITH THE DEFENDANT
In Pistachios In the Park Ltd & Anor v Sharn Panesar Ltd [2022] EWHC 2088 (QB) Mr Justice Freedman pointed out that the appellant’s argument in relation to pleading and burden of proof ran contrary to the rules. There is…
“MISSING” WHATSAPP POSTS AND A PHONE LOST AT SEA: WHAT INFERENCES WOULD THE COURT DRAW?
The facts in Vardy v Rooney [2022] EWHC 2017 (QB) are well known and have received wide publicity. Here we look solely at the evidential issues relating to the “missing” evidence. In particular the amount of WhatsApp material that went…
PROVING THINGS 234: PROVIDE AN EXPLANATION FOR DELAY BY EVIDENCE – NOT BY SUBMISSIONS
The judgment of Mr Justice Henshaw in Hays & Ors v Bloomfield Investments LLC [2022] EWHC 1648 (Comm) was on a very specific area of procedure. However there is one matter of more general interest. The need to have evidence…
Witness statements in the client’s own words: Witness statements when the client’s first language is not English: Webinar today
I am giving a webinar on the 25th July 2022 at 12.00 on “Witness statements in the client’s own words: Witness statements when the client’s first language is not English.” Booking details can be found here. (The webinar will be…
YOU CAN’T RAISE A NEW CLAIM IN A RESPONSE TO A PART 18 REQUEST: THE PLEADED CASE REMAINS IMPORTANT
In Costa v DissociaDID Ltd & Anor [2022] EWHC 1934 (IPEC) HHJ Hacon rejected the defendants’ attempt to argue points that were not pleaded. The only time an issue had been raised was in response to Part 18 requests. This…
APPLICATION TO RELY ON EXPERT EVIDENCE REFUSED: THE RULES WERE NOT FOLLOWED AND THE REPORT WAS “FAR BELOW THE STANDARD OF ANALYSIS THAT THIS COURT IS ENTITLED TO EXPECT FROM AN EXPERT WITNESS”
In North Yorkshire Clinical Commissioning Group v E (Covid Vaccination) (Rev1) [2022] EWCOP 15 Mr Justice Poole disallowed an application by a respondent in relation to expert evidence. The expert had been instructed without compliance with the procedural rules in…
A COURT ORDER IS A SERIOUS, NOT TRIVIAL, MATTER: A PARTY IN BREACH CANNOT ACT AS IF THE ORDER HAD NEVER BEEN MADE: “THAT SHIP HAS SAILED”.
One of the most imprudent things to do in litigation is to let a court order be made, not comply and then respond by arguing that the order should never have been made anyway. We see an example of this…
NINE YEARS ON IX: 2022: EXPERTS, STRIDENT LANGUAGE AND THE DUTY OWED TO THE COURT
In the final post of this series I have chosen a post from January 2022. There are many common themes on this blog: relief from sanctions; service of the claim form; Part 36; witness statements, among them. However it is…
NINE YEARS ON III: 2015: WITNESS STATEMENTS – WHO SAYS YOU’LL WIN NOTHING WITH KIDS
My, highly personal, selection of posts from each year moves on to 2015. Here we look at a blog post from February 2015 about the decision in Woodland and Maxwell. This is a case that was subject to much interlocutory…
DIRE ISSUES ARISE WHEN AN EXPERT FAILS TO COMPLY WITH THEIR OBLIGATIONS IN RELATION TO THE JOINT MEETING: FULL TRANSCRIPT NOW AVAILABLE
I have written before about the decision of Senior Master Fontaine in Andrews & Ors v Kronospan Ltd [2022] EWHC 479 (QB) where the claimants permission to rely on an expert witness was withdrawn because of conduct in relation to…
NINE YEARS ON 2: “DRAFTING WITNESS STATEMENTS : THE QUESTIONS YOU ASK WILL DETERMINE THE ANSWERS YOU GET: EIGHT CRUCIAL POINTS ON EVIDENCE”
I am “reprinting” a post from every year that this blog has been going. Today we have reached 2014. A post on drafting witness statements and the asking of leading questions. This is an ongoing issue. The drastic measures introduced…
WITNESS STATEMENTS: A FAILURE TO FOLLOW THE BASIC RULES IS OFTEN A SIGN OF MORE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEMS…
We are looking at another aspect of the judgment of HHJ Pearce in Pitalia & Anor v NHS Commissioning Board [2022] EWHC 1636_2 (QB). The judge took the time to note that none of the claimant’s witness statements complied with…
THE RULES ABOUT WITNESS STATEMENTS “SHOULD NOT BE USED AS A WEAPON FOR THE PURPOSE OF BATTERING THE OPPOSITION”: COMMONSENSE MUST BE USED: APPLICANT ORDERED TO PAY 75% OF THE RESPONDENTS’ COSTS ON THE INDEMNITY BASIS
In Curtiss & Ors v Zurich Insurance Plc & Anor (Costs) [2022] EWHC 1514 (TCC) HHJ Keyser QC (sitting as a Judge of the High Court) ordered the applicant to pay 75% the respondents’ costs on the indemnity basis. The…
EXPERT WHO WALKED “ON THE PAVEMENT HAND IN HAND” WITH THE CLIENT: EXPERT WITH ALL THE HALLMARKS OF THE MENTALITY OF AN ADVOCATE
We have already looked at the judgment of Mr Justice Mostyn in Gallagher v Gallagher (No.2) (Financial Remedies) [2022] EWFC 53 in relation to costs. There are some telling observations in that judgment in relation to the role of the expert…
THE PRACTICE DIRECTION SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN AS A WEAPON IN WHICH TO FILLET TWO OR THREE WORDS FROM A WITNESS STATEMENT: CLAIMANTS FAIL IN THEIR PITCH TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE
In Lifestyle Equities CV & Anor v Royal County of Berkshire Polo Club Ltd & Ors [2022] EWHC 1244 (Ch) Mr Justice Mellor refused the claimants’ application to exclude or edit the defendants’ witness statements. “… in my view PD57AC…
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE RULES LEADS TO PARTS OF A CLAIMANT’S WITNESS STATEMENT BEING STRUCK OUT: COMPLY WITH THE RULES – OR ELSE
In Primavera Associates Ltd v Hertsmere Borough Council [2022] EWHC 1240 (Ch) HHJ Paul Matthews, sitting as a judge of the High Court, struck out parts of the claimant’s witness statement due to its failure to comply with the rules. …
WITNESS DEMEANOUR: ARGUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE COURT OF APPEAL
Occasionally I will use Twitter to tweet links to previous posts on this blog which may continue to be of interest. I did this recently in relation to a post on witness credibility and demeanour that I wrote in 2018….
“THE LADD -V- MARSHALL CRITERIA ARE CUMULATIVE”: RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS GRANTED BUT APPLICATION TO ADDUCE NEW EVIDENCE REFUSED: APPEAL ON JUDGE’S FINDINGS OF FACT FAILED
In Premier Experts London Ltd -v- Rajwani [2022] EWHC 1188 (QB) Sir Andrew Nicol refused the defendant’s application for permission to appeal. Relief was granted when new evidence was served late, however that evidence failed to satisfy the Ladd -v-…
WITNESS STATEMENTS WHEN THE WITNESS CANNOT SPEAK ENGLISH: “IT IS DOUBTFUL THAT HE IN FACT SIGNED THE STATEMENT”
In Borra v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs & Anor [2022] EWHC 1195 (Ch) ICC Judge Mullen considered the requirements of the Practice Direction in relation to a witness giving evidence in a foreign language. None of the…
PROVING THINGS 233: ASSESSING EVIDENCE AFTER 14 YEARS: THE CRUEL CONCEPT OF CAUSATION IN MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE
This blog has looked many times at issues relating to witness evidence and the judicial approach when hearing evidence of matters that happened a considerable time before trial. The difficulties are made clear in the judgment of HHJ Emma Kelly…
PROVING THINGS 232: “THE RULES OF THE GAME OF ASSOCIATION FOOTBALL HAVE NOT BEEN DRAFTED WITH CIVIL LIABILITY IN MIND”: APPEAL LEADS TO OVERTURNING OF JUDGMENT ON FOOTBALLER’S NEGLIGENCE: A REMATCH IS ORDERED
In Fulham Football Club v Jones [2022] EWHC 1108 (QB) Mr Justice Lane allowed an appeal in a case where a footballer had found to be negligent when tackling an opponent. The judgment considers the issue of liability in the…
You must be logged in to post a comment.