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…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 44: JUST DON’T WRITE RUDE THINGS : LANGUAGE THAT IS “FAR REMOVED FROM THE PROFESSIONAL COURTESY THAT SOLICITORS ARE EXPECTED TO SHOW EACH OTHER”
Don’t write rude things. Not even in internal emails or texts. One day it may (and probably will) come back to haunt you. Read the judgment of HHJ Melissa Clarke in ATB Sales Ltd v Rich Energy Ltd & Anor…
TALES FROM THE APIL CONFERENCE 3: EXPERT WITNESSES ON LIABILITY: THE DEFENDANT’S EXPERT “DID NOT TREAT THE DEFENDANT’S CASE WITH THE IMPARTIALITY WHICH HIS DUTY TO THE COURT REQUIRES”
Yesterday, at the conference, I was talking on the subject of the use of expert witnesses in establishing liability. There is an almost immutable rule of law that a new case comes along the day after you have been lecturing…
TALES FROM THE APIL CONFERENCE 1: SOCIAL MEDIA AND THE PERSONAL INJURY LITIGATOR
I have been at the APIL annual conference this week. Ostensibly to give a talk about expert evidence, but a blogger (indeed any practising lawyer) can never miss an opportunity to pick up ideas. I went to a “Fee earner…
COURT REFORM: VIEW FROM THE DISTRICT JUDGES: “WE QUESTION WHETHER THERE HAS BEEN MEANINGFUL (AS OPPOSED TO TOKEN) CONSULTATION WITH ALL LEVELS OF THE JUDICIARY”
The Justice Committee is carrying out an inquiry into the ongoing court reforms. The written evidence it has received is available here. I just want to highlight the views from The Association of Her Majesty’s District Judges. This makes interesting…
APPEALING FINDINGS OF FACT: SEEKING FURTHER INFORMATION AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF EXPERT EVIDENCE
I am grateful to Charles Bagot QC for sending me a copy of the judgment of Mr Justice Birss in Price -v- Cwm Taf University Health Board [2019] EWHC 938 (QB). A transcript of the case is available on the…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 42: NON-DISCLOSURE OF DOCUMENTS DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS
This post arises out of a Twitter discussion. Someone was reporting that documents that had been disclosed during the course of ongoing litigation were being put copied onto social media. Is this allowed? THE RULES: NON-DISCLOSURE OF DOCUMENTS This is…
WHEN THINGS GO WRONG FOR A DEFENDANT AT TRIAL: FOUR LESSONS FROM ONE CASE: WHEN YOU HAVE AN EXPERT WHO STATES THEY ARE “BIASED”…
In Hanbury & Anor v Hugh James Solicitors (a firm) [2019] EWHC 1074 (QB) Mrs Justice Yip found that a firm of solicitors had been negligent in its conduct of a fatal accident case. There are a number of lessons…
ASSESSING EVIDENCE 26 YEARS AFTER THE EVENT: THE JUDICIAL APPROACH
In Taylor v Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust [2019] EWHC 1043 (Ch) John Kimbell QC (sitting as a High Court Judge) considered the question of assessing evidence of a brief incident, 26 years after the event, in a case…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 40: HOW CIVIL JUDGES DECIDE CASES
In Knight & Anor v Knight & Ors [2019] EWHC 915 (Ch) HHJ Matthews (sitting as a High Court Judge) set out a summary of how civil judges decide cases. It is a useful reminder to all of those involved…
PROVING THINGS 147: CLAIM FOR NOT PURSUING NEGLIGENT SOLICITORS LEADS TO NOMINAL DAMAGES ONLY: NO DAMAGES FOR “LOSS OF CHANCE”
The judgment in Waraich & Anor v Ansari Solicitors (A firm) [2019] EWHC 1038 (Comm) HHJ Pearce also contains yet another example of claimants failing to prove any loss at trial. There was no evidence to support any claim for…
WITNESS STATEMENTS WHEN THE WITNESS CANNOT READ ENGLISH: NOT GROUNDS FOR STRIKING OUT, RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS MAY NOT BE REQUIRED
In Waraich & Anor v Ansari Solicitors (A firm) [2019] EWHC 1038 (Comm) HHJ Pearce (sitting as a High Court Judge) considered the issues that arose when a point arose at the beginning of a trial in relation to signature…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 39: A NOTICE TO ADMIT FACTS: THE RULES AND CASE LAW
In a discussion about the 20th anniversary of the Civil Procedure Rules on Twitter today someone asked if “Notices to Admit Facts” were still available, they had not seen one for a long time. The rules still permit parties to…
tWENTY YEARS OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES: ALL THAT TIME AND THEY HAVE MADE FEW FRIENDS
I have already done a post on the 20th anniversary of the Civil Procedure Rules on the 26th April. In an effort to find supporters I tried again. The Civil Procedure Rules, it appears, has very few friends… …
A CASE WHERE LAWYERS BECOME RESPONDENTS TO THE ACTION WHERE A PARTY IS SEEKING TO RECOVER COSTS: ALSO WAIVING PRIVILEGE IN WITHOUT PREJUDICE CORRESPONDENCE
Technically speaking, the judgment of Mrs Justice Andrews in Willers v Joyce & Ors [2019] EWHC 937 (Ch) is about the “without prejudice” rule. However the point that has caught everyone’s attention is the fact that lawyers, previously acting for…
AN “UNFORTUNATE CHANGE OF VIEW” BY AN EXPERT: ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF A REPORT NOT BEING ROBUST AND CAUSING DIFFICULTY FOR LITIGANTS
There have been several posts this month about experts, particularly valuation experts. There are short passages in the judgment of Chief Master Marsh in Bakrania & Anor v Shah & Ors [2019] EWHC 949 (Ch) which provide another example. THE…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 36A: UNDERSTANDING “LITIGATION WISHFUL THINKING”
In assessing a case, and the evidence of both sides, litigators have to be aware of the process of “litigation wishful thinking”. Witnesses may be perfectly honest, but their memories as to what happened are influenced by what they wish would have…
THE ASSESSMENT OF EXPERT WITNESS CREDIBILITY: THE EARLIER THE BETTER (PARTICULARLY IF IT COSTS SOMEONE £7.5 MILLION)
The judgment of Mr Justice Snowden in Davey v Money & Anor [2019] EWHC 997 (Ch) will, no doubt, be read anxiously by all litigation funders. The judge held that the “Arkin cap” – a limit on the liability of…
RECORDINGS ARE DOCUMENTS: AN APPROACH TO EVIDENCE THAT WAS UNSATISFACTORY
In the judgment in Guest v Guest & Anor [2019] EWHC 869 (Ch) HHJ Russen (sitting as a High Court judge) commented on the unsatisfactory way in which recordings had been disclosed and produced to the court. It provides a…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 36 : WHAT TO DO WHEN A PROPOSED DEFENDANT HAS DIED AND THERE IS NO GRANT OF PROBATE
A search term that arrived on this blog earlier today asked “how to you sue a dead person?” The basic answer is that you can’t. You have to sue their executors or administrators. The problem arises when probate has not…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 35: WITNESS CREDIBILITY: MORE THAN MEMORY OR HONESTY
The question of witness credibility is often the central issue of most cases that get to trial. Surprisingly it is a matter that barely features in legal education. A knowledge of the factors that a judge will take into account…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 34: “THE SOURCES OF INFORMATION AND BELIEF” IN WITNESS STATEMENTS: 10 KEY POINTS
The maker of a witness statement must given the source of their information or belief. This obligation is often overlooked, or simply paid lip service to. However the careful following of this rule could prevent many of the common problems we…
LAWYERS: WHAT DO YOU DO WHEN THINGS HAVE GONE WRONG? MEANINGFUL ADVICE FROM PEOPLE WHO KNOW (AND CARE): WHEN YOU THINK SOMETHING IS HITTING THE FAN
Last night I did a post on using social media to help young lawyers (and some not so young lawyers). Specifically on how it is possible to gather information and advice from around the professions (and indeed around the world)….
SOCIAL MEDIA AS A SOCIAL GOOD:WE’RE LOOKING FOR ADVICE FOR LAWYERS WHEN THE SKY FALLS IN
Two posts last weeks dealt with the hundreds of replies I got when I asked on Twitter what advice should be given to smooth the path young or aspirant lawyers. This led to wider coverage than I could have imagined…
APPLICATION FOR RELIEF REFUSED AFTER LATE SERVICE OF WITNESS STATEMENTS
In SRI Lalithambika Foods Ltd, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWHC 761 (Admin) Charles Bourne QC, sitting as a High Court Judge, refused the claimant’s application to rely on witness statements…
WHEN AN EXPERT RELIES ON MATTERS FROM THE INTERNET FOR MATTERS OUTSIDE THEIR EXPERTISE THEN YOUR CASE IS LIKELY TO FALL APART: THE CIDER HOUSE RULES
I am returning to the decision of HHJ Paul Matthews (sitting as a High Court Judge) in Devon Commercial Property Ltd v Barnett & Anor [2019] EWHC 700 (Ch). Here was are looking at the judge’s view of one of the experts….
GIVING EVIDENCE AT TRIAL: JUST BECAUSE THE COURT HAS SAID YOU MAY – IT DOESN’T MEAN YOU WILL: HOW TO FAIL OF YOUR OWN ACCORD
Trials are always stressful events for the participants. They require careful preparation and are usually subject to close case management. Imagine the difficulties when you turn up at the trial and the judge says that the evidence you are relying…
YOU SPEND A FORTUNE ON EXPERT WITNESSES AND THEN FIND OUT THAT THEY ARE NOT ADMISSIBLE OR THEIR EVIDENCE ISN’T “EXPERT” AT ALL
There are parts of the judgment of HHJ Paul Matthews (sitting as a High Court Judge) in Devon Commercial Property Ltd v Barnett & Anor [2019] EWHC 700 (Ch) that merit close consideration by anyone involved in litigation that (they…
WITNESS STATEMENTS: THE IMPORTANCE OF THAT “FIRST DRAFT”
If you think “first drafts” of witness statements are not that important it is worthwhile having a look at the judgment of Mrs Justice Whipple in PPX v Aulakh [2019] EWHC 717 (QB). It is also an example of a…
A WITNESS STATEMENT IS NOT A PLACE TO VENT YOUR SPLEEN: “DEPLORABLE PERSONAL ATTACKS” COULD HAVE AN EFFECT ON COSTS
There is a short closing remark in Mr Justice Mostyn’s judgment in Rothschild v Charmaine De Souza [2018] EWHC 1855 (Fam) that shows the danger of including personal attacks in witness statements. It is comforting to see how often this type…
BREACH OF REGULATIONS IS IPSO FACTO NEGLIGENT: HIGH COURT JUDGMENT ON s.69 OF THE ERRA
I am grateful to Colm Nugent for sending me a copy of the judgment of HH Gore QC (sitting as a High Court judge) in Tonkins -v- Tapp (7th December 2018). The judgment deals with the issue of the relevance…
You must be logged in to post a comment.