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….
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…
You must be logged in to post a comment.