PERSONAL PEJORATIVE REMARKS IN WITNESS STATEMENTS DO NOT HELP: RECENT DECISIONS AND A REVIEW OF THE CASES
Some recent comments by HHJ Edward Hess in TM -V- KM [2022] EWFC 155 as to the language used in witness statements gives me a chance to reprise the guidance as to the lack of wisdom of using intemperate language…
EXPERTS IN COURT: THE DUTY TO POINT OUT CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS AND COMPLY WITH THE RULES
There have been a few cases recently where the actions of expert witnesses have come under the spotlight. I am grateful to barrister Henry Bankes-Jones for sending me a copy of the judgment of HHJ Baucher in Arrassey Properties Limited…
PROVING THINGS 248: THERE WAS A BREACH BUT THE CLAIMANT PROVED NO LOSS: “BATTLE OF TRAFALGAR” DOES NOT LEAD TO VICTORY
In Jerroms Trafalgars Ltd & Anor v Tilson & Ors [2022] EWHC 1420 (ChD) HHJ Worster found that a claimant had failed to established that breaches by the Defendants led to any loss. It is a classic example of a…
COURT REFUSES CLAIMANT’S APPLICATION TO EXCLUDE DEFENDANT’S EXPERT EVIDENCE: A TRIAL JUDGE CAN HANDLE EXPERT WITNESSES AT EVERY POINT OF THE SPECTRUM
In Fawcett & Ors v TUI UK Ltd [2023] EWHC 400 (KB) Mr Dexter Dias KC (setting as a Deputy High Court Judge) refused the claimant’s application to exclude the defendant’s expert evidence. The matters to which the claimant objected…
WITNESS STATEMENTS: NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE RULES AND WITNESS CREDIBILITY: A DEFENCE TO A CLAIM “BASED AT LEAST IN PART ON WISHFUL THINKING”
In Litkraft Ltd v Cottrell [2023] EWHC 465 (Comm) HHJ Pearce (sitting as a High Court Judge) considered issues relating to credibility and weight in a case where there had been non-compliance with the rules relating to witness statements. We…
WHEN ONLINE DISCUSSIONS THAT YOU NEVER THOUGHT WOULD BE MADE PUBLIC – GET SEEN: LAWYER’S TALES: “CHURN THAT BILL BABY”
Recent events have shown that even the most prominent people in public office can put material on social media sites that they assume will never be seen, and come to regret it. However politicians are not the only ones. This…
SPORTING INJURIES AND CIVIL EVIDENCE: WHEN THE DEFENDANT’S EXPERT CONCEDES THE CLAIMANT’S CASE IN CROSS-EXAMINATION
The judgment of Mr Justice Martin Spencer in Czernuszka v King [2023] EWHC 380 (KB) contains important observations in relation to the duty of care owed to those taking place in sporting activities. It also shows the important role of…
JUDGMENT OF A FINDING OF FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY – BUT THIS CASE GOES MUCH FURTHER: COLLUSION IS FOUND
Here we are looking at a case where District Judge Lumb made a clear finding of fundamental dishonesty on the part of a personal injury claimant. That finding was confirmed, or perhaps compounded, by the judge’s views in relation to…
YOU’VE INSTRUCTED THE WRONG EXPERT: AND THIS HAS MAJOR CONSEQUENCES
We are returning to the judgment of Mr Justice Ritchie in GKE v Gunning [2023] EWHC 332 (KB). This time to look at the judge’s observations on the claimant’s expert on liability. The judge observed that the claimant had instructed the…
VULNERABLE WITNESSES IN THE CIVIL COURTS: THE VULNERABLE WITNESS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SHOWN CROSS EXAMINATION QUESTIONS IN ADVANCE:
There are relatively few cases relating to vulnerable witnesses in civil courts. In GKE v Gunning [2023] EWHC 332 (KB) Mr Justice Ritchie considered the terms of an order made to protect a vulnerable witness. Although the wording of the…
“THE FOUR WITNESS STATEMENTS ARE THE CAREFUL WORK OF A LEGAL TEAM”: JUDGE CRITICAL OF THE WAY STATEMENTS WERE PREPARED FOR TRIAL
There are many aspects of the judgment of Mr Justice Fancourt in Mackenzie v Rosenblatt Solicitors & Anor [2023] EWHC 331 (Ch) that are of interest to litigators. However here we look at the judge’s criticisms of the witness statements…
THE JUDGE INTERRUPTED A BIT TOO MUCH… COURT OF APPEAL JUDGMENT
In Keane v Sargen & Ors [2023] EWCA Civ 141 the Court of Appeal commented that interruptions of the cross examination of a witness by the trial judge had not been helpful and, indeed, inappropriate. “I add a few words…
“HYPERBOLIC COMMENT” NOT WELCOME IN LITIGATION: HIGH COURT JUDGE SENDS OUT A WARNING: PLANE LANGUAGE IS BEST…
In Peregrine Aviation Bravo Ltd & Ors v Laudamotion GmbH & Anor [2023] EWHC 48 (Comm) Mr Justice Henshaw was critical of “hyperbolic comment” in relation to the witness evidence. This is not the first time that a judge has…
PROVING THINGS 246: WHEN THE WITNESS EVIDENCE MATCHES NEITHER THE PLEADINGS NOR THE CONTEMPORARY RECORDS
We are looking again at the judgment in Excalibur & Keswick Groundworks Ltd v McDonald [2023] EWCA Civ 18 from a slightly different stance. The appeal was about QOCS and setting aside a notice of discontinuance. However the process that led…
COMMENTING ON A DRAFT JUDGMENT – WHEN THE JUDGE HAS ASKED YOU TO: THE CIRCULATION OF A DRAFT JUDGMENT IS NOT THE END OF THE BEGINNING OF THE LITIGATION BUT THE BEGINNING OF THE END
There have been several cases over the years where judges have commented on the practice of parties attempting to rewrite draft judgments. In Energy Works (Hull) Ltd v MW High Tech Projects UK Ltd & Ors [2022] EWHC 3275 (TCC)…
PROVING THINGS 245: DEFENDANTS FLOORED: THEY FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT DISCLOSURE GIVEN INADVERTENTLY “ON THIS QUESTION, THE EVIDENCE BEFORE ME FROM THE DEFENDANTS IS LIMITED AND UNSATISFACTORY”
In Flowcrete UK Ltd & Ors v Vebro Polymers UK Ltd & Ors [2023] EWHC 22 (Comm) Mr Nigel Cooper KC (sitting as a High Court Judge) refused the defendants’ application to prevent the claimant from using certain documents that…
EXPERT EVIDENCE: KING CRIMSON, KANYE WEST: CONSIDERATION OF THE PRINCIPLES (AND THE COSTS): WE ARE IN THE 21st CENTURY NOW
In Declan Colgan Music Ltd v Umg Recordings, Inc [2023] EWHC 4 (Ch) Deputy Master Henderson refused the claimant’s application for permission to call expert evidence in relation to the construction and consequences of an agreement to licence music. There…
A CLEAR WARNING FOR THOSE WHO SIGN WITNESS STATEMENTS AND SOLICITORS WHO SIGN STATEMENTS OF COMPLIANCE: IT IS NOT A JUNGLE OUT THERE
In Cumbria Zoo Company Ltd v The Zoo Investment Company Ltd [2022] EWHC 3379 (Ch) HHJ Pearce sent out an important message to those who sign witness statements. He also sent out an, arguably more important message, to those solicitors…
IF YOU DON’T COMPLY WITH THE RULES RELATING TO WITNESS STATEMENTS YOUR CASE CAN (AND THIS CASE DID) GO DOWN THE DRAIN
In Brendon International Ltd v Water Plus Ltd & Anor [2022] EWHC 3321 (Ch)HHJ Cadwallader (sitting as a High Court Judge) found that numerous elements of the defendant’s witness statements were defective and non-compliant with the rules. The case is…
PROVING THINGS 244 (& COST BITES 39): WHY COSTS LAWYERS HAVE TO KNOW ABOUT PROVING THINGS
We are returning to the decision on Mr Justice Cavanagh in Shepherd & Co Solicitors v Brealey [2022] EWHC 3229 (KB) to consider another aspect of the rules relating to costs. The solicitors were seeking to persuade the court to…
CLAIMANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN PERMISSION TO RELY ON EXPERT EVIDENCE ON DEPUTYSHIP AND COURT OF PROTECTION COSTS: SUCCESSFUL APPEAL TO THE HIGH COURT
I am grateful to Daniel Slade from Express Solicitors for sending me a copy of the decision of Mr Justice Soole in AAA -v- BBB [2022] EWHC 3103 (KB). It is a case where the claimant was successful in appealing…
PROVING THINGS 243: ITS WITNESSES THAT COUNT IN FINDING PRIMARY FACTS, NOT EXPERTS
The Court of Appeal judgment today in Taylor & Anor v Raspin [2022] EWCA Civ 1613 emphasises the difficulty in appealing findings of fact. The Court also took a little time to point out the limited role of experts in…
EXPERTS: A PARTY CANNOT INSIST THAT A SINGLE JOINTLY INSTRUCTED EXPERT BE MALE: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION
In N (A Child), Re (Instruction of Expert) [2022] EWCA Civ 1588 the Court of Appeal rejected an argument that a single joint expert should have been male. The judgment emphasises the point that a party wishing to argue for…
WHEN YOU DON’T CALL THE OTHER SIDE’S EXPERTS TO COURT, BUT WANT TO CHALLENGE THEIR CONCLUSIONS: ANOTHER CASE
The post yesterday dealt with a case where the claimants failed in its attempt to go behind the defendant’s experts in a case where the claimants’ expert was never disclosed. Similar issues were considered in the interesting decision of the…
WHEN YOU HAVEN’T CALLED YOUR OWN EXPERT BUT WANT TO CRITIQUE THE EXPERT FOR THE OTHER SIDE: THIS IS NEVER GOING TO BE EASY
In White & Ors v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2022] EWHC 3082 (KB) Jeremy Hyam KC (Sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court) considered the issues that arise when a party has not called…
THE COURT CANNOT COMPEL A PARTY TO CALL A WITNESS: “PARTY AUTONOMY IS PARAMOUNT”
In QX v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] EWCA Civ 1541 (22 November 2022) the Court of Appeal held that the courts have no power to compel a party to call a witness. “The starting proposition must…
EVIDENCE OF STATISTICS FROM DEFENDANTS’ SOLICITORS RELATING TO CLAIMS NOT EXCLUDED: HIGH COURT DECISION
The judgment of Mr Justice Freedman in Kerseviciene v Quadri & Anor [2022] EWHC 2951 (KB) is of considerable interest to anyone involved in litigation, particular personal injury litigation. The judge upheld a finding that a witness statement from the…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 94: CLAIMANTS – DO NOT SHOW APPROVAL ADVICES TO THE DEFENDANT
An issue I have seen periodically, but twice this week, is a belief by some claimant solicitors that an advice obtained for the purpose of approval of a civil action for a protected party has to be shown to the…
PROVING THINGS 242: A SOLICITOR’S SHORTHAND NOTE OF WHAT HAPPENED IN THE MAGISTRATES’ COURT IS NOT GOING TO CARRY ANY WEIGHT AT ALL
The judgment of Mr Justice Garnham in Correia v Williams [2022] EWHC 2824 (KB), was looked at yesterday on this blog. The judgment also contains an interesting approach to civil evidence at trial. The claimant’s solicitor prepared a witness statement annexing her…
APPEAL COURT UPHOLDS TRIAL JUDGE’S DECISION TO REFUSE TO ADMIT WITNESS STATEMENT OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE SPEAKER THAT HAD NOT BEEN DRAFTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES
I am grateful to barrister Jake Rowley for drawing my attention to the judgment of Mr Justice Garnham in Correia v Williams [2022] EWHC 2824 (KB). Mr Justice Garnham refused an appeal when a judge had held that a witness…
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….
You must be logged in to post a comment.