ALLEGATIONS AGAINST SOLICITORS THAT PROBABLY SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN MADE: CONSPIRACY, DISHONESTY AND DECEIT – ASSERTIONS THAT WERE JUST UNTRUE
There have been a number of recent cases of property companies, who have lost heavily in the property market, seeking to recover from solicitors (not necessarily always their own solicitors) for those losses. This trend can be seen -…
ADVOCACY – THE JUDGE’S VIEW VIII: "CREDIBILITY IS ALL YOU HAVE"
This post looks at at an article by Sidney Butcher in the ABA publication “Views from the Bench: Tips for Young Lawyers on How to Make a Good Impression.” The Honorable Lynne Stewart, a District Court Judge and the Honourable…
THE MALLEABLE WITNESS: ANOTHER EXAMPLE WHERE LAWYERS WERE BLAMED FOR INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS
We have looked before at cases where witnesses point to their lawyers when discrepancies appear in their witness statements. This can occur in every type of case as can be seen by the judgment of Mr Justice Edwards-Stuart in Fluor…
PROVING THINGS 33: CAUSATION AND THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN CLAIMS AGAINST SOLICITORS
We have looked before at the decision in The Connaught Income Fund, Series 1 -v- Hewetts Solicitors [2016] EWHC 2286 (Ch). The previous post was in connection with witness evidence. However the judgment on the burden of proof is significant in terms…
JUDICIAL ASSESSMENT OF EXPERT EVIDENCE: NOT SIMPLY A CASE OF WHICH EXPERT IS PREFERRED
There is a short passage in the judgment in Barclays Bank PLC -v- Christie Owen & Davies Limited [2016] EWHC 2351 (Ch) which considers the appropriate approach of the court when considering expert evidence. “To consider simply whether to prefer…
CANAL TRUST’S ATTEMPTS TO BARGE OVER WITHOUT PREJUDICE RULE IS SUNK WITHOUT TRACE: NO WATERING DOWN OF THE PRINCIPLES
Can a party refer to without prejudice correspondence at interlocutory hearings? The previous post looked at the judgment of Chief Master Marsh in Ravenscroft -v- Canal & River Trust [2016] EWHC 2282 (Ch) in relation to the issue of McKenzie friends….
PROVING THINGS 30: OFFICE GOSSIP PROVES NOTHING: THE IMPORTANCE OF THE SOURCE OF INFORMATION AND BELIEF
There is a requirement, a mandatory requirement, that a witness making a witness statement gives the source of their information and belief. This requirement is often ignored, or there is some vague and general wording of knowledge. Ignoring, and respecting,…
WITNESS STATEMENTS THAT ARE LARGELY DISREGARDED: A CASE IN POINT
Witness statements are often too long, contain inadmissible evidence and tendentious comments. An example can be see in the judgment in Moore -v- Moore [2016] EWHC 2202 (Ch) Mr S Monty QC (sitting as a Deputy Judge of the Chancery…
WITNESS STATEMENTS: WHEN CAN A LAY WITNESS GIVE OPINION EVIDENCE?THE STATUTE, THE CASES & SOME GUIDANCE
I have written, many times, about the dangers of putting opinion evidence into witness statements. The attempts of witnesses to be experts, or to tell the judge what the outcome of the case should be, can lead to robust adverse…
WITNESS STATEMENTS: THE LAWYER'S DUTIES: A FAMILY CASE
There are some observations in the judgment in Hampshire County Council -v- O [2016] EW B22 (CC) that are of general importance. It relates to the duty of lawyers to ensure that witness statements are full and adequate. “It is…
I'VE LOST £5 MILLION AND ITS ALL MY SOLICITOR'S FAULT: WHEN THE CLIENT BLAMES YOU FOR THEIR OWN BAD DECISIONS
This post is unusual in that it deals with a case from a different jurisdiction (Northern Ireland) and a professional negligence action against a conveyancer not a litigator. However the decision of Deeny J in Eden (NI) Limited -v- Mills,…
BANQUO’S GHOST NOT AT THE FEAST: WHEN A KEY WITNESS IS NOT CALLED – THE INFERENCES A COURT WILL DRAW
There is an interesting discussion of the role of the “absent witness” in the judgment today of Mr Justice Kerr in O’Hare -v-Coutts & Co [2016] EWHC 2224 (QB). There are dangers in a party not calling someone who is…
PROVING THINGS 29: MAKE SURE THE WITNESS EVIDENCE DEALS WITH THE RELEVANT ISSUES
In Re B (a minor) (habitual residence) [2016] EWHC 2174 (Fam) Mr Justice Hayden had some important observations on the preparation of witness evidence. Although made in a family case the comments are of general observation: those who take witness…
YOUR WITNESSES ARE LINED UP ALL IN A ROW: THEN YOU MAY BE IN TROUBLE
Many cases have many witnesses saying, essentially, the same thing. Inconsistencies between witnesses are (often subconsciously) ironed out by lawyers during the statement stage. However consistency is not always a good thing. WHEN WITNESSES AGREE 100%: THEY’RE PROBABLY WRONG This…
LOOKING AT LITIGATION FROM THE LITIGANT'S VIEWPOINT 1: A BOOK WORTH READING
There is surprisingly little written about the actual experience of being a litigant, particularly a litigant in the civil courts. What is more the “experience”, or viewpoint of the client does not figure greatly (if at all) in legal training. Doctors have…
CHALLENGING VIDEO SURVEILLANCE BY THE USE OF EXPERT EVIDENCE: THE PREQUEL
Last month I wrote about the decision of Mr Justice Edis in Hayden -v- Maidstone & Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust [2016] EWHC 1962 (QB). One of the many issues the judge considered in that case was the admissibility of expert evidence to…
FRAUDULENT CLAIMANTS AND THE NEED FOR SELF-PROTECTION BY LAWYERS
A report in Litigation Futures last week illustrates the need for “self protection” by lawyers. The headline says it all “Insurance Fraudster who tried to blame his solicitor jailed for 18 months”. “IT WAS ALL MY SOLICITOR’S FAULT” The claimant…
STATING THAT YOU ARE NOT WAIVING PRIVILEGE IN A WITNESS STATEMENT IS FAR FROM CONCLUSIVE
There are several reasons litigators should read the judgment of Master Matthews in Coral Reef Limited -v- Silverbond Enterprise Limited [2016] EWHC 874 Ch. For the discussion of whether a Master is bound by the decision of a High Court…
AN EXPERT DISPLAYING ZEALOTRY IS NO HELP AT ALL (AND USUALLY HARMFUL)
In the Matter of F (a Minor) EWHC 2149 (Fam)Mr Justice Hayden had to consider whether an expert report should be admitted in a family case. The comments on the expert evidence are of general relevance. “The overall impression is…
WHAT CAN A DEFENDANT ARGUE ABOUT DAMAGES AFTER A DEFAULT JUDGMENT 3: A NUANCED APPROACH
We have looked several times before at the question of what a defendant can argue in relation to damages after judgment has been entered*. The recent decision of Master Matthews in Merito Financial Services Limited -v- David Yelloly [2016] EWHC…
RE-VISITING WHITEHOUSE -v- JORDAN 1: THESE APPEALS WERE NOT ABOUT CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE AT ALL: IT’S ALL ABOUT THE FACTS
The decisions of the Court of Appeal and House of Lords in Whitehouse -v- Jordan are often put forward as seminal cases in the law of clinical negligence. However these appeals, in reality, were not about issues relating to clinical…
THE ARROYO JUDGMENT 4: DON'T MAKE ALLEGATIONS OF LYING IF YOU HAVEN'T PUT THEM TO THE WITNESS
The previous posts* on the Arroyo judgment have concentrated, for the most part, on the judge’s criticisms of the evidence of the claimant. However there is one short passage which illustrates an important principle of litigation – a party cannot…
PROVING THINGS 28: MAKE UNWARRANTED PERSONAL ATTACKS AND USE A "MUD-SLINGING" EXPERT: THAT ALWAYS ENDS WELL
The judgment of Mr Justice Fraser in Scott -v- E.A.R. Sheppard Consulting & Civil Engineering Ltd [2016] 1949 (TCC) contains some surprising observations. It also contains important lessons in relation to “conspiracy” theories in litigation and the role of the…
PROVING THINGS 27: BURDENS OF PROOF, HEARSAY EVIDENCE AND…. ATTEMPTED MURDER
In Daley -v- Bakiyev [2016] EWHC 1972 (QB) Mr Justice Supperstone dealt with issues relating to the burden of proof where there very serious allegations. The fact that a central witness for the claimant did not attend court, and his…
THE ARROYO JUDGMENT 3: WITNESSES AND CREDIBILITY
This is the third in the series of posts on the judgment of Mr Justice Stuart-Smith in Arroyo -v-Equion Energia Limited [2016] EWHC 1699 TCC. The first looked at the issues that arose from unchecked schedules of damages; the second at the…
THE ARROYO JUDGMENT 2: EXPERTS, OH EXPERTS.
This is the second in the series of posts on the judgment of Mr Justice Stuart-Smith in Arroyo -v-Equion Energia Limited [2016] EWHC 1699 TCC. The first looked at the issues that arose from unchecked schedules of damages. Here we look…
THE ARROYO CASE WAS A BIG & COMPLEX ACTION: THE PROBLEMS WERE SIMPLE (AND COMMON) 1: UNCHECKED SCHEDULES OF DAMAGES
The judgment of Mr Justice Stuart-Smith in Arroyo -v-Equion Energia Limited [2016] EWHC 1699 TCC is 1885 paragraphs long. The trial lasted from the 15th October 2014 to the 5th March 2015, that is 62 court days. The judgment actually…
UNNECESSARY MATERIAL, DUPLICATION AND INFORMATION OVERLOAD: ANOTHER JUDGE'S LAMENT
The observations of Mr Justice Kerr at the end of his judgment in Kimmance -v- General Medical Council [2016] EWHC 1808 (Admin) contains some familiar themes in relation to the preparation of cases: bundles, citations and skeletons. “The parties should…
"SECOND" ACTION FOR CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE NOT STRUCK OUT AS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS
In the judgment today in Wright -v- Barts Health NHS Trust [2016] EWHC 1834 (QB) Mr Justice Edis refused the defendant’s application to strike out the claim or for summary judgment on the grounds that the claimant had settled an…
PROVING THINGS 26: DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN WHAT YOU CAN REMEMBER AND WHAT YOU NOW THINK YOU DID
There have been a large number of posts on this blog about witness evidence, in particular the way that the courts assess the accuracy of evidence. A surprising number of these have been in the context of clinical negligence claims….
KEEPING PARTIES OUT OF COURT IN CIVIL PROCEEDINGS : COURT OF APPEAL DECISION
The practice of sending witnesses out of court whilst evidence is being given is extremely rare in civil cases. It was considered by the Court of Appeal in Da Costa -v- Sargaco [2016] EWCA Civ 764. “… whilst there may…
PROVING THINGS 25: ATTEMPTS TO SMUGGLE IN WITNESS STATEMENTS DO NOT HELP (AND CARRY NO WEIGHT)
There are interesting observations in the judgment of His Honour Judge Hacon today in Raft Limited -v- Freestyle of Haven Limited [2016] EWHC 1711 (IPEC) in relation to an attempt to avoid a limit on the number of witnesses who…
PROVING THINGS 24 : DAMAGES AND THE "BUT FOR TEST": WHEN IT GETS REALLY COMPLEX
The judgment of Mr Justice Foskett today in Reaney -v- University Hospital of North Staffordshire NHS Trust [2016] EWHC 1676 (QB) is interesting reading. Not least because the parties could not agree what the Court of Appeal had decided and…
PROVING THINGS 22: DAMAGES, MITIGATION , PART 36 (AND EVEN SOMETHING ABOUT BUNDLES)
The Court of Appeal decision today in Pawar -v- JSD Haulage Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 551 contains some important lessons in relation to proving damages, mitigation of loss and Part 36 offers. “The fact that a claimant does not mitigate…
THE HARB CASE: IT'S ALL ABOUT THE EVIDENCE: A TRIAL JUDGE MUST "SHOW THEIR WORKINGS"
The Court of Appeal judgment in Harb -v- HRR Prince Abdul Aziz Bin Fahd Bin Abdud Aziz [2016] EWCA Civ 556 has attracted a lot of attention because of the comments the Court made about the allegations of judicial bias….
MY WITNESS STATEMENT WAS DRAFTED BY MY LAWYER: THANK YOU OFFICER
There are 909 paragraphs in the judgment of Mr Justice Wyn Williams in Mouncher -v- The Chief Constable of South Wales Police [2016] EWHC 1367 (QB). I just want to look at one of them. This was a case all…
IT IS THE CLIENT THAT SHOULD GIVE THE EVIDENCE NOT THE SOLICITOR: ALSO VERY LATE DISCLOSURE
Why should a lawyer ever want to give evidence. What practical value does evidence given by a lawyer have when their clients could have been called? These were issues considered today by Master Marsh in his judgment in Pineport Limited…
CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AND FUNDING: THE OUTCOME OF A LONG STRUGGLE
I have received an email informing me that, thanks to the help received from a post on this blog they – eventually – obtained legal aid and successfully defended committal proceedings. Although the thanks are addressed to me it is…
PROVING THINGS 21: WHEN THE WHOLE PROCESS OF INVESTIGATION IS FLAWED
I have looked at family cases before on this blog, usually in the context of witness evidence and issues relating to the burden of proof. Many of the decisions of family judges have to be taken on the basis of…
ADVOCACY – THE JUDGE’S VIEW III: MORE GUIDANCE FROM CANADA
As part of the series looking at the advice that judges give to advocates (and how this relates to civil litigators in particular) we return to Canada. Judge Carol Baird Ellan collected the views of 12 of her colleagues in…
ADVOCACY – THE JUDGE’S VIEW II: "USEFUL","JUST & CHEAP": GUIDANCE FROM DOWN UNDER
The post earlier this week on Things Lawyers do to Annoy Judges was, without doubt, one of the most publicised and read posts on this blog. However it also opened up a rich train of enquiry: what do judges write…
PROPORTIONALITY CONQUERS ALL? PROFIT COSTS (AND COUNSEL'S FEES) HALVED
The decision of Master Gordon-Saker in BNM -v-MGN Limited [2016] EWHC B13 (Costs) has already received widespread publicity. The principle of proportionality was used to halve profit costs and counsel’s fees and make a substantial reduction on the insurance premium….
THINGS LAWYERS DO TO ANNOY JUDGES: EDITED HIGHLIGHTS
Regular readers of this blog will be familiar with the judgment of Mr Justice Joseph W. Quinn in the case of The Hearing Clinic (Niagara Falls) -v- Ontario Ltd, 2014 ONAC 5831 where he was more than blunt in his…
WITNESS EVIDENCE, RELIABILITY AND CREDIBILITY: WHY EVERYONE SHOULD READ GESTMIN (OR FAILING THAT, MY SUMMARY)
I spent the afternoon lecturing to a group of enthusiastic lawyers about the importance of witness statements (and where things can, and do go wrong). I was worried that the enthusiasm could be waning waning when I took them, in…
PROVING THINGS 20: ALLEGATIONS OF IMPROPER CONDUCT HAVE TO BE PROVEN: INDEMNITY COSTS ORDERED
In Collins -v- Thanet District Council Collins anor v Thanet DC anor (19 4 16)(Jud) 2 [2016] EWHC 1008 (QB) His Honour Judge Yelton (sitting as a Judge of the High Court) considered the evidence available to support allegations of misfeasance…
ELEMENTARY EVIDENCE: THE COURTS DO NOT FOLLOW THE APPROACH OF SHERLOCK HOLMES
The judgment of Mrs Justice Carr DBE in Cooper -v-Thameside Company Ltd [2016] EWHC 1248 (TCC) contains an interesting, and ultimately important, consideration of the judicial approach to fact finding. It is interesting that this £6.5 million depended, primarily, on…
EXPERT SHOPPING: CHANGING EXPERTS AND DISCLOSURE OF REPORTS
Suspicions are often aroused when an party wants to change expert mid-way through a case. There is, usually, a requirement that before a court grants permission to instruct a new expert the previous report has to be disclosed. The case…
SOCIAL MEDIA AND CIVIL EVIDENCE: WHAT DID YOU SAY ON LINKEDIN?
Social media played a part in the decision of Registrar Derrett in Green -v- Marston [2016] EWHC B11 (Ch). It illustrates the importance of social media across many fields of litigation. THE CASE The claimant was the liquidator of a…
I WROTE LOTS OF UNEDIFYING, AGGRESSIVE AND UNCOOPERATIVE LETTERS: LOOK WHERE IT GOT ME
One of aspects of the judgment in McTear -v- Englehard [2016] EWCA Civ 487 that could easily be overlooked is the observations of Lord Justice Vos in relation to the nature of the correspondence between the parties. “It would seem…
COURT OF APPEAL OVERTURN REFUSAL TO GRANT RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: RE-TRIAL NECESSARY
In McTear -v- Engelhard [2016] EWCA Civ 487 today the Court of Appeal overturned a refusal to grant relief from sanctions. Consequently there will have to be a re-trial. (The judgment at first instance in this Case was considered in…
You must be logged in to post a comment.