CIVIL PROCEDURE: BACK TO BASICS 10: CHALLENGING THE AUTHENTICITY OF DOCUMENTS MUST BE DONE PROMPTLY: COURT REFUSES LATE APPLICATION – DENTON CRITERIA APPLIED
There is a short addendum to the judgment of Lionel Persey QC (sitting as a High Court Judge) in Lloyd v Kruger [2018] EWHC 2011 (Comm). This deals with a very late application by the claimant to assert that documents were…
CIVIL PROCEDURE:BACK TO BASICS 9: THE COURT NOT ENTITLED TO REJECT WRITTEN EVIDENCE UNLESS IT IS “SIMPLY INCREDIBLE”
There is a short passage in Wards Solicitors v Hendawi [2018] EWHC 1907 (Ch) HHJ Paul Matthews (sitting as a judge of the High Court), that serves as a reminder of a basic principle in interlocutory proceedings – a court will not…
PROVING THINGS 121: FAILING TO PROVE LOSS OF EARNINGS, AND THE APPROPRIATE APPROACH WHERE FUTURE TREATMENT IS UNCERTAIN
Yesterday I looked at Welsh v Walsall Healthcare NHS Trust [2018] EWHC 1917 (QB) and the comments from the judge in relation to the joint statement of experts. The case also contains interesting observations in relation to proving damages. These are observations on matters…
EXPERTS, LAWYERS & THE JOINT REPORT (II): NO SUBSTANTIVE INPUT FROM LAWYERS PLEASE
This is the second case today looking at observations made in cases this week in relation to the joint meeting of experts. In BDW Trading Ltd v Integral Geotechnique (Wales) Ltd [2018] EWHC 1915 (TCC) HH Honour Judge Stephen Davies stated…
EXPERTS, LAWYERS AND THE JOINT-REPORT (1): JUST ONE AGENDA PLEASE
Curiously there are two cases today that deal with the role of lawyers and the joint report. The first I will look at is the judgment of Mrs Justice Yip in Welsh v Walsall Healthcare NHS Trust [2018] EWHC 1917 (QB)….
ADVOCACY THE JUDGE’S VIEW: SERIES 3 PART 7: LADY JUSTICE MACUR: NOT DIVERTING FROM A SCRIPT AND STATEMENTS OF PRINCIPLE THAT POSE AS QUESTIONS
In this post I am recommending you read an interview with Lady Justice Macur by the Law Society “the art of good advocacy”. This is an interview following a seminar with the same name given in April 2016. Remember these…
PROVING THINGS 120: PROVING DAMAGES: THE DANGERS OF NOT HAVING A CREDIBLE “FALL BACK” POSITION
In Moore & Anor v National Westminster Bank [2018] EWHC 1805 (TCC) Mr Justice Birss dismissed an appeal by the defendant against an award of £115,000 in damages. It is a case about the appropriate assessment of damages when the defendant…
PROVING THINGS 119: WITNESSES & EXPERTS : “IN A CASE OF FAIRLY REMARKABLE REPORTS, THIS WAS THE MOST EXTRAORDINARY”
If you want to see an example of problematic witness statements, and even more problematic expert witnesses, then read the judgment of Mrs Justice Jefford DBE in Castle Trustee Ltd & Ors v Bombay Palace Restaurant Ltd [2018] EWHC 1602 (TCC). …
PROVING THINGS 118: IT SEEMS THAT EVEN THE LORD CHANCELLOR DOESN’T KNOW HOW TO PROVE THINGS: “THAT FINAL SENTENCE WAS BOTH INACCURATE AND MISLEADING”
A body charged with the delivery of legal services to some of the most vulnerable people in our society (and which, incidentally, is in charge of the justice system) should be making decisions that are logical and justifiable – you…
ADVOCACY: THE JUDGE’S VIEW SERIES 3 PART 6: MAY IT PLEASE YOU, MADAM: STORIES THAT EVERY LITIGATOR NEEDS TO KNOW…
In the sixth in this series we a looking at “May it please you Madam” by retired District Judge Neil Hickman. This is not designed as a guide for advocates, indeed the subtitle is “A little book of legal whimsy”. …
THE “TRUE VOICE OF THE WITNESSES ARE NOTABLY LACKING FROM THEIR WITNESS STATEMENTS”: INORDINATE AMOUNT OF TIME & COSTS SPENT FOR NO GOOD REASON
In Estera Trust (Jersey) Ltd & Anor v Singh & Ors [2018] EWHC 1715 (Ch) Mr Justice Fancourt made some telling observations about the usefulness of witness statements prepared for the case. This is a common observation in relation to witness…
PROVING THINGS 117: A DISHONEST POLICE OFFICER IS “MALICIOUS”: PROVING A CASE FOR MALICIOUS PROSECUTION AND MISFEASANCE IN PUBLIC OFFICE
In the judgment in Rees & Ors v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2018] EWCA Civ 1587 the Court of Appeal overturned a finding that a police force was not liable for malicious prosecution and misfeasance in public office because…
COURTESY, CONDUCT AND LITIGATION: A ROUND UP OF THE POSTS
Last week I set out the responses on Twitter about professional courtesy and conduct. This is a good opportunity to recap on the four posts on this subject. “AGGRESSIVE CORRESPONDENCE” AND EFFECTIVE LITIGATION: ARE THE TWO SYNONYMOUS OR DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED…
PROVING THINGS 116: HONEST WITNESSES CAN BE WRONG: “INSIGNIFICANT EVENT” BECOMES “MAGNIFIED IN THE CLAIMANT’S MIND”
The judgment in Pauline Carter v Kingswood Learning And Leisure Group Limited [2018] EWHC 1616 (QB) shows a scenario where a claimant can be totally honest and credible, but still be wrong. “I am sure she is an honest person, but…
FIFTH BIRTHDAY REVIEW 10: THE PROVING THING SERIES: SIZE DON’T SEEM TO MATTER…
This is the last in the series looking back at key series of posts on this blog over the past five years. Keen observers will note that most series last for about 10 posts. When the “Proving Thing” series started…
WHEN THE OTHER SIDE’S LAWYER SENDS THE COURT PRIVILEGED DOCUMENTS: THE DILEMMA OF THE PARALEGAL “WHISTLE BLOWER”
Several people have pointed out the judgment in Bruzas v Saxton [2018] EWHC 1619 (Fam) to me. This is a case that could have profound effects for the profession and the principles of legal professional privilege. This is the preliminary…
FIFTH BIRTHDAY REVIEW 7: THE “BACK TO BASICS” SERIES
I am looking back at the posts that have been part of a series over the past five years. The “Back to Basics” posts are part of a series that is very much ongoing. The aim of each post is…
MORE ABOUT WITNESS STATEMENTS AND THE ICI CASE: WHEN EVIDENCE IS NOT ADMISSIBLE AND (WHEN IT IS) IT IS NOT RELIABLE
We are looking again at aspects of the judgment of Mr Justice Fraser in Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd v Merit Merrell Technology Ltd [2018] EWHC 1577 (TCC).The previous post in this case looked at the “duplicate” witness statements of the defendant. Here…
FIFTH BIRTHDAY REVIEW 5: THE JUDGE’S GUIDE TO ADVOCACY SERIES: TWO AND A HALF DONE
There are two completed series on judge’s guide to advocacy – and we are part way through the third. There is still plenty of material available and I wouldn’t be surprised if there is a fourth series. Advice has been…
WHEN LESSONS ARE NOT LEARNT: “IDENTICAL WITNESS STATEMENTS” : COPY AND PASTE FUNCTION OF A WORD PROCESSOR WILL NOT IMPRESS A JUDGE
It is worth looking in more detail at the the judgment of Mr Justice Fraser in Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd v Merit Merrell Technology Ltd [2018] EWHC 1577 (TCC). In particular on witness statements. The judgment sets out some important lessons (it…
5th BIRTHDAY REVIEW 4: AVOIDING PROBLEMS AFTER MITCHELL: LIVING IN THE SHADOW OF THE BIKE
It is universally recognised that the Court of Appeal judgment in Mitchell was a mistake. The Master of the Rolls stated that the decision in Mitchell decision led to a “febrile atmosphere” leading to “unreasonable decision making”. There were 219…
5th BIRTHDAY REVIEW 3: AVOIDING NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS
This is the third post that looks back at series of posts over the past five years. The series on avoiding negligence claims was written at the end of 2013. The emphasis was on avoiding negligence claims, particularly for personal injury…
CIVIL LITIGATION BRIEF FIFTH BIRTHDAY CELEBRATIONS 1: POSTS ABOUT STRESS AND WORKLOAD FOR LITIGATORS AND LITIGANTS
This week sees the 5th anniversary of the start of Civil Litigation Brief as a blog. I am marking this by going over some of the key series of posts over the five year period. Here I recap on those…
PROVING THINGS 115: WHEN HANDWRITTEN NOTES OF MEETINGS VARY FROM THE TYPED VERSION (AND THERE IS MORE…)
For the second time in recent weeks I am looking at how a judge assesses evidence in a family case. Again this shows issues of general importance and relevance in the relation of those responsible for gathering evidence in the…
PROVING THINGS 114: A WITNESS OF FACT CANNOT GIVE EXPERT EVIDENCE: NO ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE OF ANY LOSS
There are several elements worth looking at in the judgment in Wessely & Anor (Liquidators of Laishley Ltd) v White [2018] EWHC 1499 (Ch). However it is a prime example of a simple failure to prove things. If the applicants had…
PROVING THINGS 113: POOR EVIDENCE COLLECTION: EXPERTS STRAYING WELL BEYOND THEIR REMIT AND WHO ARE “NOT ENTITLED TO REACH THAT CONCLUSION”
Family cases, however, often come up with interesting observations in relation to the judge’s role as a fact finder. Similarly much can be gained by looking at the judge’s observations on experts. We see a critique of the process of…
WITNESS DEMEANOUR: NOT THAT IMPORTANT (INDEED PROBABLY UNIMPORTANT): COURT OF APPEAL DECISION
I am grateful to Laurie Anstis for drawing my attention to the decision of the Court of Appeal decision in SS (Sri Lanka), R (On the Application Of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWCA Civ 1391….
THE NATURE OF EXPERT EVIDENCE: THIS IS NOT EXPERT EVIDENCE AT ALL – AND OF NO HELP TO ME: JUDGE NOT IMPRESSED BY “ATTACHMENT THEORY”
It is rare for the court to reject “expert” evidence placed before it on the grounds that it is not expert evidence at all. This is rarer still now that permission is normally required before expert evidence can be adduced. It…
PROVING THINGS 112: ITS NO USE JUST WAVING ACCOUNTANT’S REPORTS AROUND
In Berkshire Homes (Northern) Ltd v Newbury Venture Capital Ltd [2018] EWHC 938 (Ch) the respondent relied on accountant’s reports in an attempt to prove its case. The case shows that it is insufficient just to produce accounts. Evidence has to…
APPLICATION TO ADDUCE NEW EVIDENCE: COURT OF APPEAL WOULD NOT BE MOVED
In The National Guild of Removers & Storers Ltd v Bee Moved Ltd & Ors [2018] EWCA Civ 1302 the Court of Appeal refused the appellant’s application to adduce new evidence. It is a a case that highlights the difficulties of…
JUDGES CANNOT MAGICALLY ACQUIRE INFORMATION BY OSMOSIS: THE DUTY ON PARTIES TO ENCAPSULATE LONG-RUNNING LITIGATION
In SC BTA Bank v Ablyazov & Anor [2018] EWHC 1368 (Comm) Patrica Robertson QC (sitting as a High Court Judge) reminded practitioners that judges have no magical powers. When a long-running case on a “grand scale” comes before the court…
THIS IS NOT A “PLEADING POINT”: WHY LISTS OF ISSUES NEED TO BE CAREFULLY DRAFTED: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION
In Scicluna v Zippy Stitch Ltd & Ors [2018] EWCA Civ 1320 the Court of Appeal reiterated the importance of the list of issues. This relates to procedure in the Employment Tribunal however, as the judgment points out, lists of issues…
PROVING THINGS 111: CAUSATION IN CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CASES WHERE THERE IS A FAILURE TO WARN: BURDEN OF PROOF REMAINS ON THE CLAIMANT
The judgment of the Court of Appeal in Duce v Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust [2018] EWCA Civ 1307 deals with a number of matters. Here I want to look at the question of proving causation in a case where the…
RISK ASSESSMENTS AND THE PERSONAL INJURY LAWYER: IF YOU COULDN’T MAKE THE LECTURE – SEE THE WEBINAR: 10th JULY 2018
I am giving a webinar on the 10th July 2018 at 1.00 pm “Risk Assessments and Personal injury Claims : A Blueprint for action”. “Risk assessments are meant to be an exercise by which the employer examines and…
PROVING THINGS 108: PROVING PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE WITHOUT EXPERT EVIDENCE
In Avondale Exhibitions Ltd v Arthur J. Gallagher Insurance Brokers Ltd [2018] EWHC 1311 (QB) His Honour Judge Keyser QC (sitting as a Judge of the High Court) considered the issue of whether it was necessary to adduce expert evidence to…
PROVING THINGS 107: PROVING A “STAGED CRASH” TO THE CRIMINAL STANDARD: CCTV EVIDENCE PROVIDES CONVINCING EVIDENCE
In Aviva Insurance Ltd v Nazir & Anor [2018] EWHC 1296 (QB) His Honour Judge Gosnell (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) found the two defendants in contempt of court when they had taken part in a staged crash and…
WITNESS STATEMENTS AND COST BUDGETS: “THEY WILL HAVE BECOME AN ARTIFICIAL CONSTRUCT OF THE LAWYERS”
There are some interesting observations in the judgment of Chief Master Marsh in Various Claimants v MGN Ltd [2018] EWHC 1244 (Ch). The way in which a witness statement is likely to be drafted can be considered at the cost budget…
PROVING THINGS 106: YOU DIDN’T COMPLY WITH YOUR OWN RISK ASSESSMENT AND YOU WANT TO APPEAL: COURT REJECTS DEFENDANT’S ARGUMENT THAT CLAIMANT FAILED TO PROVE CAUSATION
In CC v Leeds City Council [2018] EWHC 1312 (QB) Mr Justice Turner reiterates the importance of the risk assessment in personal injury litigation. On appeal the judge rejected an argument that a claimant had failed to prove causation. The defendant’s…
PROVING THINGS 105: BURDEN ON CLAIMANT TO PROVE A DEFECT: THE DIFFICULT TASK OF APPEALING FINDINGS OF FACT ON APPEAL
I am grateful to Matthew Snarr for sending me a copy of the judgment, given yesterday, in Bond -v- Tom Croft (Bolton) Ltd [2018] EWHC 1290 QB. It contains an important observation about the burden of proof in establishing that…
CLAIMANTS WERE NOT CREDIBLE: DEFENDANT’S APPEAL SUCCESSFUL: “THE DEFENDANT PRESENTED AN ANSWERABLE CASE THAT THE CLAIMANTS FAILED TO PROVE THEIR CASE”
In Richards & Anor v Morris [2018] EWHC 1289 (QB) the defendant was successful in appealing on the grounds that the trial judge should have made more robust findings from the lack of credibility on the part of the claimants. There…
PROVING THINGS 104: “THERE IS NO EVIDENCE BEFORE ME AS TO HOW THE PLAINTIFF WOULD PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF A GHOST”
I don’t normally travel too far from England and Wales in the Proving Things series. However a kind reader sent me an article on the Canadian decision in Ont. Inc. v K-W Labour Association et al, 2013 ONSC 5401 (CanLII). It…
PROVING THINGS 103: CAUSATION WHEN THE CLAIMANT TRIED TO ESCAPE FROM A BALCONY: A TALE OF TWO JUDGMENTS
There is an interesting consideration of causation in the Court of Appeal judgment today in Clay v TUI UK Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 1177. This has the flavour of a case that may go further. There is an interesting dissenting judgment…
PROVING THINGS 1O2: FAILING TO PROVE CHANCE OF RECONCILIATION
A claimant in a fatal accident claim does not have to prove an entitlement to a dependency claim on the balance of probabilities. The court can, in appropriate cases, look at the case on the basis of loss of chance,…
PROVING THINGS 101:A RECAP – THE FIRST 100 POSTS : WHEN BASIC MATTERS ARE JUST NOT PROVEN
When I started this series I never anticipated it would run to 100 posts. Up until last week I had planned to stop after 100. However the Leeds Legal Walk served, inadvertently, as a feedback session for this blog. Since…
EXPERTS AS ADVOCATES FOR THE CLAIMANTS’ CAUSE: WITNESSES WHOSE EVIDENCE WAS VERY DIFFERENT TO THEIR WITNESS STATEMENTS
I am grateful to Dominic Regan for sending me a copy of the judgment of Mrs Justice Andrews today in Gee -v- Depuy International Ltd [2018] EWHC 1208. The judgment is 762 paragraphs long and will be widely read by…
PROVING THINGS 99: THE ROLE OF THE JOINTLY INSTRUCTED EXPERTS: TRIAL JUDGE COULD PREFER VIEWS OF OTHER EXPERT
The opinion of a single joint expert is not binding on the court. This is clear from the judgment of Mr Justice Turner today in HJ v Burton Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2018] EWHC 1227 (QB) “The opinion of a single…
PROVING THINGS 98: AN EASY AND OBVIOUS ROUTE TO REFUTE ALLEGATIONS OF NEGLIGENCE (WHICH WAS NOT DONE)
I am returning to the decision of Mr Justice Martin Spencer today in Lesforis v Tolias [2018] EWHC 1225 (QB). This time in the context of proving, or refuting, allegations of negligence. There was a simple route by which the defendant could have…
BUNDLES: CREDIT WHERE CREDIT IS DUE: CORE BUNDLE OF EVIDENCE DRAWS THANKS FROM THE TRIAL JUDGE
Most of the posts on bundles on this blog have been judges complaining about their quality or quantity. It is worthwhile looking at the observations of Mr Justice Martin Spencer today in Lesforis v Tolias [2018] EWHC 1225 (QB) (of which…
PROVING THINGS 97: AN APPROACH THAT WAS UTTERLY FLAWED AND HOPELESSLY CARELESS: WHEN SOLICITORS LETTERS BECAME PART OF A PROCESS OF UNLAWFUL HARRASSMENT
In Worthington & Anor v Metropolitan Housing Trust Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 1125 the Court of Appeal upheld a decision that a housing association had unlawfully harassed its own tenants. A major part of the problem came from the association’s highly…
ADVOCACY: THE JUDGE’S VIEW SERIES 3: PART 4: A VIEW FROM THE CLERK’S BENCH: MANNERS MAKETH THE ADVOCATE
In this post I am recommending you read “The Art of Advocacy: Twenty Tips for your First Court Appearance” a post on the “Survive Law” blog. Unlike the other posts in these series this is written by Jennifer who was a…
You must be logged in to post a comment.