CIVIL PROCEDURE – BACK TO BASICS 3: THE STATEMENT OF TRUTH
The aim of this series is to look at things that litigators do every day – almost automatically. Signing a statement of truth is one of those things. This is a regular occurrence in many solicitor’s offices. It is a…
PROVING THINGS 88: MATTERS YOU HAVE TO PROVE IF YOU WANT AN INJUNCTION: THE IMPACT OF A SIX MONTH DELAY IN APPLYING
In Blade Motor Group Ltd v Reynolds & Reynolds Ltd [2018] EWHC 497 (Ch) an applicant for an injunction failed because it failed to prove the basic requirements. The fact that there was a six-month delay in applying for the injunction…
SPEAKING TO YOUR WITNESS IN THE COURSE OF THEIR EVIDENCE: STRIKE OUT DECISION UPHELD ON APPEAL
An earlier post reported on the decision of the Employment Tribunal in Chidzoy -v- BBC (available here). It illustrates the dangers of a witness talking to anyone in the course of their evidence. This case emphasises the importance of witnesses not…
CIVIL PROCEDURE – BACK TO BASICS 2: “EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT” OF AN APPLICATION
The previous post looked at some of the basic requirements of an application to the court. Here we look at the evidence that may be needed in support of an application. The key point here being “evidence”. Numerous hours are…
CIVIL LITIGATORS AND THE SECRET BARRISTER 4: WHY WE CAN’T TRUST THE GOVERNMENT (OR OURSELVES)
SB’s book sales plough on. It has reached the top 10 in the best seller list. The Criminal Bar Association have set up a fund to send a copy of the book to every MP. You can donate here. …
WHEN THE JUDGE IS ENTITLED NOT TO DECIDE ON THE EVIDENCE: PLUS THE IMPORTANT ISSUE OF CONDUCT AND COSTS
The Court of Appeal decision today in Constandas v Lysandrou & Ors [2018] EWCA Civ 613 illustrates two distinct issues: The position when a judge is unable to make a finding on the evidence. What conduct can lead to a successful…
STRIKING OUT A DEFENCE: FONT SIZE, LINE SPACING AND A MAXIMUM PAGE LENGTH ORDERED: PLEADINGS THAT “TEND TO OBFUSCATE RATHER THAN CLARIFY THE ISSUES”
In Brown & Anor (t/a Maple Hayes Hall School) v AB [2018] EWHC 623 (QB) Mr Edward Pepperall QC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) struck out a defence that was . In giving the defendant another chance he made…
OVER-LISTING HAS CONSEQUENCES : (SO DOES TALKING OVER YOUR OPPONENT): HEARINGS SHOULD NOT BECOME A “SHOUTING MATCH”
There is a page on this blog where I am attempting to collate problems with listing (across all jurisdictions). The judgment reported today in A v R & Anor (Appeal of Summary Determination) [2018] EWHC 521 provides a reminder that listing…
PROCEDURAL DEFECTS AND CPR 3.10: CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT
The judgment in Baxendale-Walker v APL Management Ltd [2018] EWHC 543 (Ch) covers several issues relating to procedure. Here I want to look at the assertions made in relation to procedural defects. The judge held that some procedural errors by the…
LATE SERVICE OF NOTICE OF FUNDING AND RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: THIS DOES NOT END WELL FOR THE CLAIMANT: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION
In the judgment today in Springer v University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust [2018] EWCA Civ 436 the Court of Appeal upheld a decision that refused to give relief from sanctions following late service of notice of funding. The case shows…
HOW A COURT ASSESSES WITNESS EVIDENCE: A SHORT PRIMER
We have already looked at the decision of the upper tribunal in Conegate Ltd v Revenue & Customs (CAPITAL GAINS TAX – purchase of shares) [2018] UKFTT 82 (TC) in relation to issues of privilege and without prejudice discussions. The same judgment…
PROVING THINGS 87: FAILURE TO PROVE BASIC ELEMENTS MEANT THAT THE FULL PREMIUM WAS NOT RECOVERED
I am grateful to Dominic Regan for sending me a copy of the judgment of District Judge Baldwin in Nicolaou -v- Cass (Liverpool CC 1st November 2017). The claimant failed to recover a substantial figure for a stage 2 premium…
WITHOUT PREJUDICE COMMUNICATIONS & WAIVING PRIVILEGE IN A WITNESS STATEMENT: TAXING MATTERS
A post earlier this week looked at the issue of privilege and the third edition of the standard work on the topic. It is worthwhile looking at the decision in Conegate Ltd v Revenue & Customs (CAPITAL GAINS TAX – purchase…
LITIGATORS – MISSED A DEADLINE? DON’T DIG BIGGER HOLES FOR YOURSELF: DIG YOURSELF OUT (WITH A LITTLE HELP FROM YOUR FRIENDS)
The decision in Wingate & Anor v The Solicitors Regulation Authority [2018] EWCA Civ 366 may well be Jackson L.J’s last judgment (certainly as a full time judge). It concerned the conduct of solicitors. I want to look at one aspect…
SIR RUPERT JACKSON ON THE DAY OF HIS RETIREMENT: A REVIEW OF SOME JUDGMENTS ON PROCEDURE
It is well known that Sir Rupert Jackson retires on the 7th March. There are several reviews of the work Sir Rupert has done in re-shaping civil procedure. Here I want to look at a few of his judgments that…
A PRIVILEGE TO READ : THE LAW OF PRIVILEGE 3rd EDITION: COUPLED WITH SOME RECENT EXAMPLES – TO SHOW WHY YOU NEED IT
The Law of Privilege is now in its third edition. I have been reading through it and planning a review for some time. I came across the decision, on BAILLI today in Fleming v East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust…
“MISSING WITNESSES”- THE INFERENCES TO BE DRAWN: THE USE OF YOUR OPPONENT’S WITNESS STATEMENTS – ITS ALL OR NOTHING
In Property Alliance Group Ltd v The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc [2018] EWCA Civ 355 the Court of Appeal considered, amongst other things, two issues relating to witness evidence. Firstly in relation to the inferences a court should draw from missing…
WITNESS CREDIBILITY 3: A JUDGMENT FROM TODAY: CREDIBILITY A CENTRAL PART OF THE CASE
This is the third post today about the subject of the assessment of witness credibility. By a curious piece of good planning it comes from a judgment today in Jiangsu Shagang Group Co Ltd v Loki Owning Company Ltd [2018] EWHC…
WITNESS CREDIBILITY 2: ACADEMIC SCRUTINY: PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH AND WITNESS EVIDENCE
Near the beginning of many judgments after a trial there is a section where the judge gives their view of the reliability and credibility of the witnesses. In about 98% of cases it is not necessary to read further to…
WITNESS CREDIBILITY 1: A STRUCTURED APPROACH: DEMEANOUR NOT DETERMINATIVE
This blog has looked at issues relating to witness credibility on many occasions. Here we look at a decision by the Upper Tribunal in KB & AH (credibility-structured approach : Pakistan) [2017] UKUT 491 (IAC). This is of general interest. Issues…
WHEN QOCS APPLY: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION: THE SWINGS AND THE ROUNDABOUTS
In Corstorphine (An Infant) v Liverpool City Council [2018] EWCA Civ 270 the Court of Appeal considered an important issue in relation to Qualified One Costs Shifting. What order should be made when the claimant has QOCS protection against some of…
SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT IN A NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST SOLICITORS
I am grateful to my colleague at Hardwicke, Laurence Page, for sending me a transcript of the judgment of District Judge Langley in the case of Wright -v- Rix & Kay Solicitors, Central London County Court, 30/11/2017 (available here Wrighttranscript)….
EXPERTS: THE JOINT REPORT AND THOSE TROUBLESOME “AGENDAS”
There are several passages in the judgment of Mrs Justice Yip in David John Saunders -v- Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2018] EWHC 343 (QB) that highlight a common problem with joint reports. That is the problematic “agenda”. A …
PROVING THINGS 86: CLAIMANTS PROVE THE FACTS BUT FAIL TO PROVE CAUSATION: A SALUTARY TALE
The decision of His Honour Judge Simpkiss in O’Neill -v- Bull & Bull* (Canterbury County Court 5th February 2018) is an almost classical example of the need to prove things. It also provides a warning to non-contentious lawyers on the…
ANONYMOUS WITNESSES AND CONFIDENTIALITY CLUBS: HIGH COURT DECISION
In Kalma & Ors v African Minerals Ltd & Ors [2018] EWHC 120 (QB) Mr Justice Turner considered the issue of anonymous witnesses and confidentiality clubs. He granted six witnesses anonymity. This was subject to the identity of the witnesses being…
WITNESS EVIDENCE: CREATING AN ACCURATE RECORD OF INAPPROPRIATE CONDUCT AT WORK: SPOT – AN IMPORTANT DEVELOPMENT
I have written before about the book The Memory Illusion. In essence lawyers need to be concerned about how easy it is for false memories to be created and how fallible the human memory is. The creation of an inaccurate…
CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE AND WITNESS EVIDENCE: INFORMED CONSENT NOT GIVEN: HIGH COURT JUDGMENT TODAY
There are many posts on this blog about how, ultimately, many clinical negligence cases turn on the issue of what was said. Liability often depends on which account of a conversation the trial judge prefers. This can be seen in stark…
PART 36: THE UNCERTAIN PROGNOSIS AND THE CLAIMANT’S CONUNDRUM: FIVE POINTS TO THINK ABOUT
The earlier post on the Court of Appeal decision in Briggs -v- CEF Holdings Ltd [2017] EWCA 2363 (Civ) gives rise to a conundrum that claimants (and sometimes defendants) have to address. How do you advise a client when a Part 36…
THE SHORTER TRIAL SCHEME: PROCEDURAL WRANGLING AND PROBLEMATIC EXPERT EVIDENCE: IT CAN’T BE BRUSHED ASIDE
In the judgment today in L’Oréal Société Anonyme RN Ventures Ltd [2018] EWHC 173 (Pat) Mr Justice Henry Carr set out his concerns on aspects of the procedure and expert evidence before the court. The judgment contains some lessons for litigators…
FACT FINDING IN THE FAMILY COURT: ERRATIC WITNESSES AND BEHAVIOUR ON DISCLOSURE WHERE THE CONDUCT WAS NOT FAR SHORT OF CONTEMPT
We have looked at “fact finding” by the courts many times. The fact finder in a family case has a particularly arduous and unenviable task . The judge has to assess evidence that is often highly charged, and where there…
WITNESS STATEMENTS THAT DON’T COMPLY WITH THE RULES: 10 REASONS WHY THE GIVING THE SOURCE OF INFORMATION IS IMPORTANT: LITIGATION REQUIRES EVIDENCE NOT GOSSIP
There is a brief report on Lawtel that highlights the need for compliance with the rules relating to witness statements. The issue of failing to give sources of information and belief has been dealt with several times on this blog….
PROVING THINGS 85: AN INABILITY TO PROVE EVEN A SMALL SUM MEANS IT WILL NOT BE AWARDED
Many of the issues that have been looked at in the Proving Things series have been in relation to failures to prove substantial issues, or substantial sums. However the need to prove things is a universal requirement. I want to look…
PROVING THINGS 84: THE NEED TO PROVE A LOSS IS A PRESSING ONE: THAT OLD FASHIONED NEED TO PROVE DAMAGES: BUSINESS INTERRUPTION CLAIM REJECTED
In Contact (Print And Packaging) Ltd v Travelers Insurance Co Ltd [2018] EWHC 83 (TCC) His Honour Judge Stephen Davies (sitting as a High Court Judge) considered (and rejected) a claimant’s claim for damages for interruption to its business. It is…
PROVING THINGS 83: WHEN A DEFENDANT DOES NOT GIVE EVIDENCE, ADVERSE INFERENCES CAN BE DRAWN: STAGED CRASH ESTABLISHED
In UK Insurance Ltd v Gentry [2018] EWHC 37 (QB) Mr Justice Teare considered what inferences can properly be drawn when a defendant, accused of dishonesty, does not give evidence. KEY POINTS The claimant brought a case in deceit – alleging…
PRESENTING THE CASE PROPERLY FOR YOUR CLIENT: TRIAL BUNDLES: RESURRECTING THE ADVICE GIVEN BY “LEGAL ORANGE”
The average lifespan of a blog is around 100 days. One blog on law and litigation that stopped posting several years ago was Legal Orange . A blog that started in December 2013 and where the last post was December…
EXPERT REPORTS SHOULD BE EXCHANGED CONCURRENTLY: THE PRINCIPLES APPLIED IN A CAR HIRE CASE: WHEN EVIDENCE CAN AMOUNT TO A SKELETON ARGUMENT
The decision of District Judge Glen in Kansal -v- Tang (31st January 2017, County Court at Slough) is available on the DWF website. It says a lot about “expert” evidence about hire rates. In particular the judge’s comment that evidence…
AN UNAPOLOGETIC REPEAT: WHY YOU NEED TO CHECK YOUR OWN CLIENT’S INSURANCE BEFORE GIVING UP ON A PERSONAL INJURY CASE
Every year or so I repeat one point about insurance. It has caused a stir every time I have written about it. As the numbers of people who read this blog increase, and because people can forget things. I am…
HAS THE WITNESS FOR THE OTHER SIDE WRITTEN A BOOK? THAT IS AN INTERESTING QUESTION: RESEARCHING AN EXPERT BEFORE THEY GIVE EVIDENCE
I have lost track of the number of interlocutory judgments there have been in the case of Kimathi & Ors v Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The latest judgment being at [2017] EWHC 3054 (QB). This judgment deals with the issue…
THE CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES: WHEN THE DEFENDANT’S OWN EVIDENCE AMOUNTS TO A HOME GOAL
This blog has looked many times at the issue of witness credibility and why the judge prefers the evidence of one witness over another . This was an issue to the fore in the judgment of Mr Justice Green in Khakshouri…
“SOMETIMES AN UNIMPRESSIVE WITNESS SPEAKS THE TRUTH”: FACT FINDING AND THE CIVIL COURTS: PRIVY COUNCIL OVERTURN FINDINGS OF FACT
In Cleare v The Attorney General & Ors (Bahamas) [2017] UKPC 38 the Privy Council was scathing of the method of fact finding of the trial judge. The judge erred in failing to consider the significance of medical evidence. ” It…
PREVIOUS FINDINGS OF FOREIGN LAW CAN BE BINDING: THE ACT, THE NOTICES AND A CASE
We have looked at the decision in Kazakhstan Kagazy Plc & Ors v Zhunus & Ors [2017] EWHC 3374 (Comm) Mr Justice Picken in the context of the Foreign Limitation Periods Act. There was a brief description of a little used…
2018: A NEW YEAR RESOLUTION FOR LITIGATORS: DON’T LEAVE MATTERS TO CHANCE – LEARN TO PROVE DAMAGES
For nearly two years this blog has documented issues (and often failures) when parties fail to prove things. In a surprising number of cases the failures are very basic. Proving things is the basic job of the litigator. However we…
CIVIL LITIGATION REVIEW OF 2017 (II): OPENING LINES OF JUDGMENTS
The opening lines of judgments has been a much-discussed issue this year. A brief discussion on Twitter led firstly to the ICLR posting a detailed review Battle of the BAILLI – the best opening lines of a judgment. This is…
CIVIL LITIGATION AND THE MARTIAL ARTS: MCGANN -V- BISPING: ROUND 3: LATE WITNESS STATEMENTS AND “IMPLICIT” ORDERS FOR RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS
We have already looked twice at the “sparring” arguments in relation to procedure in the case of McGann v Bisping [2017] EWHC 2951 (Comm). A further procedural issue arose as to whether a party was debarred from calling evidence at all. The…
CIVIL LITIGATION AND THE MARTIAL ARTS: MCGANN -V- BISPING: ROUND 2: WHEN A WITNESS DISCUSSES THEIR EVIDENCE
The judgment in McGann v Bisping [2017] EWHC 2951 (Comm) deals with numerous procedural issues, many of which arose in the course of the trial. We have looked at one of these already. The case also involved a witness, during the course…
PROVING THINGS 82: ITS NO GOOD FISHING – THE JUDGE WON’T BITE
It is surprising how often litigants get to trial and find that they have not got even the most basic evidence to prove their claim for damages. This happened to the claimant today in One Fish Company Ltd v Iceland Foods…
CIVIL LITIGATION AND THE MARTIAL ARTS: McGANN -v- BISPING: ROUND 1: DISPUTING THE AUTHENTICITY OF DOCUMENTS WITHOUT SERVICE OF A NOTICE UNDER CPR 32.19
The judgment today in McGann v Bisping [2017] EWHC 2951 (Comm) involves multiple issues in relation to civil evidence, procedure and witness credibility. Here I want to look at just one issue – the failure to serve a notice under CPR…
ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS DEPLOYED IN COURT: A DETAILED CONSIDERATION
The judgment of Master McCloud in Dring v Cape Distribution Ltd & Anor (Constitution – access to courts – open justice) [2017] EWHC 3154 (QB) considers the issue of whether the public should have access to documents disclosed during the course…
HOT TUBBING OF EXPERTS: NEW PRACTICE DIRECTION
The 93rd Update on Practice Direction Amendments also introduced a change in the rules as to concurrent evidence from experts. This gives the trial judge a considerable degree of flexibility about the way in which expert evidence is heard. These rules came…
WITNESSES WHO ARGUE THE CASE AND EXPERTS WHO ACT AS ADVOCATES: THIS IS NOT GOING TO HELP …
In British Telecommunications Plc v Office Of Communications [2017] CAT 25 the Competition Appeal Tribunal commented on two of the central evidential issues of much commercial litigation: witnesses who give much commentary and “argue” the case; experts who act as advocates. …
You must be logged in to post a comment.