I’M NOT TAKING A PLEADING POINT – BUT: FAILURE TO PUT A POINT IN CROSS-EXAMINATION NOT FATAL TO CLAIMANT’S CASE
The judgment in Auckland v Khan & Anor [2018] EWCA Civ 1148 is in short form. However it does illustrate the difficulties of appealing on “pleading points” and findings of fact. “There are certainly cases in which the failure to put…
BELIEVING YOUR CLIENTS: CAN THEY AFFORD IT? THE COMPLEX ISSUE OF “TRUTH” AND “LIES”: WHAT DOES THE LAWYER DO?
There are two sources for this post. The first is a blog by Lucy Reed on Pink Tape “It’s not my job to believe you – here’s why” ; the second is the judgment in Ruffell -v- Lovatt HHJ Hughes 4 April 2018. …
PROVING THINGS 95: OH… WHY A COMBATIVE EXPERT WITNESS NEVER HELPS: LEAVE ADVOCACY TO THE ADVOCATES…
Crown Office Chambers have a short post on their website that deals with the judgment in Ruffell -v- Lovatt HHJ Hughes 4 April 2018. The post provides a link to the judgment itself. The judgment is another example of a…
PROVING THINGS 94: : THE DEFENDANT WANTS TO CHOOSE BOTH THE CLAIMANT’S LITIGATION FRIEND AND SOLICITOR: EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT FAR FROM COMPELLING
There are some audacious applications. However an application by defendants that attempts to dictate who the claimant’s litigation friend should be, and who their solicitor should be, should – at the very least – be backed up by firm evidence. …
PROVING THINGS 93: PROVING A WILL: THERE ARE SPECIFIC RULES THAT THE PARTIES SHOULD FOLLOW
I cannot remember the last time I read a case where the Court of Appeal heard evidence from witnesses (who had not been heard below) and made a request that it have sight of original documents. This is what happened…
CIVIL PROCEDURE – BACK TO BASICS 7: BUNDLES: A CHANCE TO REVISIT “SEDLEY’S LAWS”
If there is a league for blogs with the most number of posts about bundles then Civil Litigation Brief may well be in the top 10 (sadly I suspect even in the top place). There is a reason for this….
PROVING THINGS 92: WHERE THE CLAIM FOR DAMAGES WAS LARGELY “WISHFUL THINKING”: £1 MILLION CLAIM REDUCED TO £25,104 (OH & THROW IN A ERRANT EXPERT AS WELL)
The judgment of John Martin QC (sitting as a High Court judge) in London College of Business Ltd v Tareem Ltd & Anor [2018] EWHC 437 (Ch) is a prime example of a failure to prove damages. The claim was…
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN “KNOWLEDGE” AND “BELIEF”? A CASE AND A REVIEW OF 10 KEY POINTS
This blog has looked, many times, at the importance of giving the source of information and belief when a party (and particularly when a legal representative) makes a witness statement. It is sometimes possible for you opponent to attempt to…
PROVING THINGS 91: HOW TELLING IS A “FIST BUMP”? A JUDGE NOTICES THINGS THAT GO ON OUTSIDE THE WITNESS BOX
There are a number of issues that arise in the judgment of Mrs Justice Yip in the judgment today Clark v Farley & Anor [2018] EWHC 1007 (QB). It shows how how a defendant failed to prove its case and the…
NO LUCK WHEN REACHING FOR THE SKY: LITIGANTS SEEKING A SECOND BITE OF THE CHERRY FROM THE TRIAL JUDGE GET SHORT SHRIFT
In an earlier post about the case of P (A Child), Re [2018] EWCA Civ 720 we looked at an example where the parties (all the parties in the case) had correctly used the guidance in English v Emery Reimbold and Strick Ltd [2002]…
LATE SKELETON ARGUMENTS AND LATE EVIDENCE: THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD DO BETTER: DIVISIONAL COURT DECISION: A TEXTBOOK EXAMPLE OF WHAT NOT TO SAY AND DO
In The National Council for Civil Liberties (Liberty), R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor (Procedural Matters) [2018] HC 976 (Admin) the Divisional Court took care to file a supplemental judgment that dealt…
VULNERABLE WITNESSES IN THE CIVIL COURTS: EXISTING GUIDANCE AND THE IICSA RECOMMENDATIONS
The criminal and family courts have developed sophisticated methods for dealing with vulnerable witnesses. There is relatively little guidance in the civil courts. This was an issue noted yesterday in the interim report of Independent Inquiry Child Sex Abuse. Here…
CIVIL PROCEDURE – BACK TO BASICS 6: NON-DISCLOSURE OF A PART 36 OFFER
This post is caused by some comments on Twitter this evening. A surprising number of cases where parties have, by one method or other, disclosed a Part 36 offer. This has been done by including the offers in the trial…
A JUDGMENT ADJOURNING A TRIAL: THE CLAIMANT DID NOT KNOW WHETHER THE ACTION WAS NECESSARY; THE TRIAL BUNDLE DID NOT HAVE THE KEY DOCUMENT (AND MORE)
The short judgment of Mr Justice Holman in Matthews v Matthews & Anor [2018] EWHC 906 (Fam) looks like a family case. However it is an inheritance claim and contains some surprising revelations. KEY POINTS If you are asking a judge…
PROVING THINGS 90 : THE TATTOO ARTIST & THE CACTUS SHOP: PRICK ME ONE MORE TIME
The opportunities for puns arising out of the issues in Martinez (t/a Prick) & Anor v Prick Me Baby One More Time Ltd (t/a Prick) & Anor [2018] EWHC 776 (IPEC) are obvious (and indeed are mentioned in the judgment itself)….
WHEN FACT FINDING GOES WRONG: APPEALS TO THE COURT OF APPEAL WHEN THERE ARE DELAYS BY THE JUDGE
I am going to leave it to the family law bloggers to analyse all the implications of the judgment in P (A Child), Re [2018] EWCA Civ 720. It involves all parties in a case agreeing that the fact finding process at…
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…
You must be logged in to post a comment.