Civil Litigation Brief ®
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Membership Plans
  • Webinars
  • Login
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers
Browse: Home » Civil evidence » Page 39
BEHAVIOUR IN THE COURTROOM - IT GOES FURTHER THAN YOU THINK:  SOME CASES AND SOME GUIDANCE

BEHAVIOUR IN THE COURTROOM – IT GOES FURTHER THAN YOU THINK: SOME CASES AND SOME GUIDANCE

October 8, 2017 · by gexall · in Access to justice, Applications, Civil evidence, Conduct, Credibility of experts, Members Content

The vast majority of studies on behaviour in the courtroom concentrate on the interaction between the judge, the advocates and the witnesses.  However the courtroom is a big place. Twice in recent weeks we have seen judges refer to the…

THE ASSESSMENT OF EXPERT EVIDENCE: HANDWRITING EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE : THE JUDGE FELT HE WAS IN SAFE HANDS

THE ASSESSMENT OF EXPERT EVIDENCE: HANDWRITING EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE : THE JUDGE FELT HE WAS IN SAFE HANDS

October 8, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

The judgment of Mr Justice Jay in ARB v IVF Hammersmith Ltd [2017] EWHC 2438 (QB) is one that has already made headlines.  There is much of interest. However, that  part of the judgment that deals with the analysis of…

THE CIVIL STANDARD OF PROOF AND ALLEGATIONS OF DISHONESTY: AVOIDING HINDSIGHT

THE CIVIL STANDARD OF PROOF AND ALLEGATIONS OF DISHONESTY: AVOIDING HINDSIGHT

October 6, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Witness statements

In Group Seven Ltd & Anor v Nasir & Ors [2017] EWHC 2466 (Ch) Mr Justice Morgan considered issues relating to the standard of proof when there are allegations of dishonesty and fraud.  Part of the judgment also deals with the…

WHEN THE CLAIMANT WAS REFUSED PERMISSION TO ACCEPT £300,000: WHAT HAPPENED NEXT? (THIS DOESN'T END WELL FOR SOMEONE)

WHEN THE CLAIMANT WAS REFUSED PERMISSION TO ACCEPT £300,000: WHAT HAPPENED NEXT? (THIS DOESN’T END WELL FOR SOMEONE)

October 6, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Members Content, Part 36, Risks of litigation

Earlier this week there was a post on the case of Houghton (Stanley) -v- P.B. Donaghue (Haulage & Plant Hire Ltd & Ors) [2017] EWHC 1738 (Ch) in which a claimant was refused permission to accept an offer of £300,000 after…

EVIDENCE IN A CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CASE: MISSING WITNESSES AND ERRANT EXPERTS: LIABILITY SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADMITTED EARLIER: ATTEMPT TO BACKTRACK FROM JOINT REPORT NOT SUCCESSFUL

EVIDENCE IN A CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CASE: MISSING WITNESSES AND ERRANT EXPERTS: LIABILITY SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADMITTED EARLIER: ATTEMPT TO BACKTRACK FROM JOINT REPORT NOT SUCCESSFUL

October 5, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Experts, Members Content

The case of Palmer v Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust [2017] EWHC 2460 (QB) is one where the defendant was, ultimately, successful on the issue of causation. However the judge had some interesting observations as to the expert evidence called by both…

WITNESSES, SURVEILLANCE, DEMEANOUR AND EXPERTS - IT ALL COMES DOWN TO CREDIBILITY: A  PERFORMER UNLIKELY TO FOOL ALL OF THE PEOPLE ALL OF THE TIME

WITNESSES, SURVEILLANCE, DEMEANOUR AND EXPERTS – IT ALL COMES DOWN TO CREDIBILITY: A PERFORMER UNLIKELY TO FOOL ALL OF THE PEOPLE ALL OF THE TIME

October 4, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

We have already looked at judge’s observations as to the amount of material before the court in the case of  Miley v Friends Life Ltd [2017] EWHC 2415 (QB). It was a case that rested upon credibility. Surveillance evidence, expert evidence and…

THIS IS A LOT OF MATERIAL FOLKS: ALL THIS INDUSTRY MAY NOT BE TO POINT: SEEING THE WOOD FOR THE TREES

THIS IS A LOT OF MATERIAL FOLKS: ALL THIS INDUSTRY MAY NOT BE TO POINT: SEEING THE WOOD FOR THE TREES

October 4, 2017 · by gexall · in Applications, Bundles, Case Management, Civil evidence, Members Content

In Miley v Friends Life Ltd [2017] EWHC 2415 (QB) Mr Justice Turner made some observations in relation to the volume of documentation and the subsequent judgment. It is important, he said, for a judge to keep sight of the wood…

SOME WARNINGS AS TO EVIDENCE: A SYMPHONY REVIVED:  HOW THE JUDGE CONDUCTS AN ASSESSMENT OF CREDIBILITY

SOME WARNINGS AS TO EVIDENCE: A SYMPHONY REVIVED: HOW THE JUDGE CONDUCTS AN ASSESSMENT OF CREDIBILITY

September 29, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Experts, Members Content, Witness statements

The post yesterday on witness credibility in the case of Frenkel v Lyampert & Ors [2017] EWHC 2223 (Ch) referred to a passage in the earlier case of EPI Environmental Technologies Inc v Symphony Plastic Technologies plc (Practice Note) [2005] 1 WLR 3456.    This…

ASSESSING THE CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES: PROBLEMS WITH INDEPENDENCE WHEN THE WITNESS REQUIRES A TRANSLATOR

ASSESSING THE CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES: PROBLEMS WITH INDEPENDENCE WHEN THE WITNESS REQUIRES A TRANSLATOR

September 28, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

Who is going to be believed? This is the central question in many (if not most) cases that go to trial.  The judgment of Miss Amanda Tipples QC in Frenkel v Lyampert & Ors [2017] EWHC 2223 (Ch) shows many of…

EXPERT REPORTS: "CONTENTIONS THAT SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN PURSUED AT ALL"

EXPERT REPORTS: “CONTENTIONS THAT SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN PURSUED AT ALL”

September 28, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

In Maximov v Open Joint Stock Company “Novolipetsky Metallurgichesky Kombinat” [2017] EWHC 1911 (Comm) Sir Michael Burton (sitting as a High Court Judge) commented on the expert evidence in relation to Russian law.   The fact that an expert made concessions…

“MULTIPLE SERIOUS ERRORS” IN JUDICIAL DECISION MAKING : THE UPPER TRIBUNAL DECISION IN FULL

September 27, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content

The case of AA069062014 & Ors. [2017] UKAITUR AA069062014 has already attracted considerable attention on social media and beyond. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration & Asylum Chamber) considered appeals in 14 cases.  The major issue was the tribunal judge.  Here are the…

SIGNING A STATEMENT OF TRUTH ON BEHALF OF A CLIENT: A STARK REMINDER FROM THE COUNTY COURT ONLINE PILOT PRACTICE DIRECTION

SIGNING A STATEMENT OF TRUTH ON BEHALF OF A CLIENT: A STARK REMINDER FROM THE COUNTY COURT ONLINE PILOT PRACTICE DIRECTION

September 26, 2017 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Members Content, Statements of Case, Statements of Truth, Witness statements

I have looked before at the issues that arise when the legal representative signs a statement of truth on behalf of a client.  These issues are shown in stark terms in the Practice Direction 51S – The County Court Online…

WHEN A JUDGMENT STARTS "OH DEAR, OH DEAR, OH DEAR": CAR CRASHES AND MOTORWAY PILE UPS IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL: UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE RENDERED SPEECHLESS

WHEN A JUDGMENT STARTS “OH DEAR, OH DEAR, OH DEAR”: CAR CRASHES AND MOTORWAY PILE UPS IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL: UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE RENDERED SPEECHLESS

September 25, 2017 · by gexall · in Access to justice, Appeals, Civil evidence, Conduct, Members Content

This blog sometimes looks at tribunal decisions, primarily in the context of procedural issues.  These issues abound in the decision of Upper Tribunal judge Nicholas Wikeley in AF v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (DLA) (No2) (Tribunal procedure and…

PROVING THINGS 67: THE DIFFICULTIES WHEN WITNESSES DEPARTS FROM THEIR WITNESS STATEMENT: MULTIPLE INCONSISTENCIES DAMAGE CREDIBILITY

PROVING THINGS 67: THE DIFFICULTIES WHEN WITNESSES DEPARTS FROM THEIR WITNESS STATEMENT: MULTIPLE INCONSISTENCIES DAMAGE CREDIBILITY

September 19, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

I am grateful to my colleague Colm Nugent for sending me a copy of the decision in Baker -v- British Gas Services (Commercial) Limited [2017] EWHC 2302. Amanda Yip QC (sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court*), considered…

WHEN ONE EXPERT TELLS THE OTHER EXPERT TO "GO BACK TO SCHOOL":  CASES ON CONDUCT AND THE MEETING OF EXPERTS

WHEN ONE EXPERT TELLS THE OTHER EXPERT TO “GO BACK TO SCHOOL”: CASES ON CONDUCT AND THE MEETING OF EXPERTS

September 17, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

The case of Hatfield -v- Drax Power Ltd (18/08/2017)*   highlights some of the issues that arise in the meeting of experts.  The meeting is an important stage in many types of action, however the case law and rules relating to it…

AN EXPERT REPORT THAT WAS "EXTRAORDINARY IN ITS PRESENTATION AND SHOT THROUGH WITH BREATH TAKING ARROGANCE": THIS DOESN'T END WELL

AN EXPERT REPORT THAT WAS “EXTRAORDINARY IN ITS PRESENTATION AND SHOT THROUGH WITH BREATH TAKING ARROGANCE”: THIS DOESN’T END WELL

September 15, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Conduct, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

Problems caused by expert witnesses feature heavily on this blog. I am grateful to barrister Brian McCluggage for sending me a copy of the decision of Her Honour Judge Belcher in Hatfield -v- Drax Power Ltd (18/08/2017) which contains robust…

ASKED TO SIGN A GUARANTEE: WORDS OF WISDOM

ASKED TO SIGN A GUARANTEE: WORDS OF WISDOM

September 13, 2017 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Members Content

It is rare for a judgment to include clear guidance to the public on how to avoid problems.  However this can be found in the judgment of Mr Justice Max Barrett in AIB Plc. -v- Rostaff Property Development Limited & ors…

FACT FINDING FOR LAWYERS : HOLIDAY CLAIMS: SRA GUIDANCE - NOT A WALK ON THE BEACH

FACT FINDING FOR LAWYERS : HOLIDAY CLAIMS: SRA GUIDANCE – NOT A WALK ON THE BEACH

September 8, 2017 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Witness statements

The Solicitors Regulation Authority has issued a specific warning notice in relation to holiday sickness claims.  The notice, issued on the 6th September 2017, contains important guidance in relation to the role of the solicitor in investigating facts. The guidance…

WITNESSES, STATEMENTS AND LAWYERS -  "SELF PROTECTION": A QUICK RECAP

WITNESSES, STATEMENTS AND LAWYERS – “SELF PROTECTION”: A QUICK RECAP

September 6, 2017 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Witness statements

Sometimes, quite often in fact, clients need “protecting” from lawyers who are preparing witness statements on their behalf. I have dealt with this in previous posts and will write on this again in the near future. However here I want…

THE DUTIES OF A SOLICITOR IN LITIGATION: NO DUTY TO TEMPT THE CLIENT TO PURSUE LARGE SUMS: ADVERTISING "TURNED THE CLIENT'S HEAD" AND LED TO INCORRECT ASSERTIONS

THE DUTIES OF A SOLICITOR IN LITIGATION: NO DUTY TO TEMPT THE CLIENT TO PURSUE LARGE SUMS: ADVERTISING “TURNED THE CLIENT’S HEAD” AND LED TO INCORRECT ASSERTIONS

September 4, 2017 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Professional negligence,

In Thomas v Hugh James Ford Simey Solicitors [2017] EWCA Civ 1303  the Court of Appeal considered the extent of a solicitor’s duty and retainer. It is significant in that it: States that the courts should approach the issue of fixed…

NO SPECIAL FORM OF "MEDIATION PRIVILEGE": MEDIATION AGREEMENT DID NOT OVERRIDE GENERAL PRINCIPLES PREVENTING WITHOUT PREJUDICE COMMUNICATION BEING USED A A FORM OF BLACKMAIL

NO SPECIAL FORM OF “MEDIATION PRIVILEGE”: MEDIATION AGREEMENT DID NOT OVERRIDE GENERAL PRINCIPLES PREVENTING WITHOUT PREJUDICE COMMUNICATION BEING USED A A FORM OF BLACKMAIL

September 3, 2017 · by gexall · in Amendment, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content

The decision of Mrs Justice Rose in  Interactive Technology Corporation Ltd v Ferster & Ors [2015] EWHC 3895 (Ch) considers the issue of “mediation privilege”.  This is not a new case (the judgment was dated 21st December 2015) however it has…

THROWING EVERYTHING IN AT TRIAL- INCLUDING THE KITCHEN CABINET: YOU HAVE TO PUT YOUR CASE (AND PLEAD IT)

THROWING EVERYTHING IN AT TRIAL- INCLUDING THE KITCHEN CABINET: YOU HAVE TO PUT YOUR CASE (AND PLEAD IT)

August 28, 2017 · by gexall · in Case Management, Civil evidence, Members Content, Statements of Case, Witness statements

There are some important observations in the judgment of Mr Justice Henry Carr in Neptune (Europe) Ltd v Devol Kitchens Ltd [2017] EWHC 2172 (Pat) about the need to plead and put a case at trial.  An attempt to introduce a…

EXPERT WITNESS GIVEN "NO WEIGHT AT ALL": FAILURE TO DISCLOSE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST

EXPERT WITNESS GIVEN “NO WEIGHT AT ALL”: FAILURE TO DISCLOSE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST

August 24, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

There are some interesting passages in the judgment of David Stone (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) in Technomed Ltd & Anor v Bluecrest Health Screening Ltd & Anor [2017] EWHC 2142 (Ch). Here we look at the judgment…

SOMETIMES YOU DON'T HAVE TO  SIGN STATEMENTS OF CASE WITH A STATEMENT OF TRUTH: HIGH COURT DECISION ON AMENDING PARTICULARS OF CLAIM

SOMETIMES YOU DON’T HAVE TO SIGN STATEMENTS OF CASE WITH A STATEMENT OF TRUTH: HIGH COURT DECISION ON AMENDING PARTICULARS OF CLAIM

August 23, 2017 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Members Content, Statements of Case, Statements of Truth

The case of Kimathi v Foreign and Commonwealth Office [2017] EWHC 2145 (QB) promises to be a legal epic. As I understand it the trial is not even half way through. It was opened in April 2017.  It is unlikely…

PROVING THINGS 66: IT ALL COMES DOWN TO THE CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES: WHERE THERE'S A WILL THERE'S A WAY

PROVING THINGS 66: IT ALL COMES DOWN TO THE CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES: WHERE THERE’S A WILL THERE’S A WAY

August 22, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

This blog regularly looks at cases in which trial judges assess the credibility of witnesses. Here I want to look at the careful analysis of witness evidence by HHJ Paul Matthews (sitting as a High Court judge)  in Legg & Anor…

WITNESS STATEMENTS "INADMISSIBLE":  CONTAINED "SUBJECTIVE INTENTION", "OPINION" AND "LEGAL ARGUMENT":  ANOTHER EXAMPLE

WITNESS STATEMENTS “INADMISSIBLE”: CONTAINED “SUBJECTIVE INTENTION”, “OPINION” AND “LEGAL ARGUMENT”: ANOTHER EXAMPLE

August 22, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

A brief passage under the judgment of Mr Justice Arnold in Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd v Fougera Sweden Holding 2 AB [2017] EWHC 1995 (Ch) serves to show how much “witness evidence” served by a litigant can, in fact, be inadmissible….

WITNESS EVIDENCE: THE DANGERS OF OPINION EVIDENCE  AND TRYING TO USURP THE ROLE OF THE JUDGE : BACK TO MARSH -v- MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

WITNESS EVIDENCE: THE DANGERS OF OPINION EVIDENCE AND TRYING TO USURP THE ROLE OF THE JUDGE : BACK TO MARSH -v- MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

August 20, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

Anyone considering matters relating to witness evidence and the drafting of statements will be drawn like a moth to the fire to the decision of Lady Justice Thirwall in Marsh -v- Ministry of Justice [2017] EWHC 1040. Once again I am returning…

THE DUTY TO PUT YOUR CASE : FINDINGS MADE ON KEY POINTS  WHICH WERE NOT PUT TO THE WITNESS  OVERTURNED ON APPEAL

THE DUTY TO PUT YOUR CASE : FINDINGS MADE ON KEY POINTS WHICH WERE NOT PUT TO THE WITNESS OVERTURNED ON APPEAL

August 18, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Witness statements

In Chen v Ng (British Virgin Islands) [2017] UKPC 27  the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council considered the extent of the duty to put a case to a witness. It is a reminder of the importance of putting a case…

DEFENDANT DEBARRED FROM CALLING WITNESS EVIDENCE AT TRIAL: COURT OF APPEAL OVERTURNS FINDING FOR DEFENDANT

August 17, 2017 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Witness statements

The case of Durrant -v- Chief Constable of Avon & Somerset Constabulary is a long-running saga. We have looked at it twice before. The incident occurred in 2009.  In 2013 the Court of Appeal overturned a judge’s decision to grant…

WRITING TO THE COURT UNILATERALLY (AGAIN) -  PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS AND WHY JUDGES NEED THE PATIENCE OF A SAINT

WRITING TO THE COURT UNILATERALLY (AGAIN) – PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS AND WHY JUDGES NEED THE PATIENCE OF A SAINT

August 16, 2017 · by gexall · in Access to justice, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content

I have no plans to expand this blog to cover issues relating to procedure in Employment Tribunals.  However there are certain passages of the judgment  of Mr Justice Kerr in Jones v The Secretary of State for Business Innovation &…

PROVING THINGS 65: : ASSUMPTIONS ARE NOT EVIDENCE: (IF THE COURT OF APPEAL HAVE TO ASK FOR THE MATTER TO BE MADE SIMPLE YOU ARE IN SERIOUS TROUBLE)

PROVING THINGS 65: : ASSUMPTIONS ARE NOT EVIDENCE: (IF THE COURT OF APPEAL HAVE TO ASK FOR THE MATTER TO BE MADE SIMPLE YOU ARE IN SERIOUS TROUBLE)

August 13, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Damages, Expert evidence, Members Content

The case of Ted Baker Plc & Anor v Axa Insurance UK Plc & Ors [2017] EWCA Civ 4097 could serve as a parable of modern litigation. The claimant won the first trial on this matter, establishing the defendant insurers were…

WHAT DO YOU DO WHEN IT ALL GETS TOO MUCH (OR IT IS YOU THAT HAS TO PICK UP THE PIECES):  A RECAP

WHAT DO YOU DO WHEN IT ALL GETS TOO MUCH (OR IT IS YOU THAT HAS TO PICK UP THE PIECES): A RECAP

August 10, 2017 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content

I am repeating, in large part, an earlier post.   I do so without apology. Part of my job involves, periodically, dealing with cases (sometimes multiple cases) where someone has “gone off the rails” leaving numerous practical and procedural problems…

PROVING HANDWRITING IN CIVIL CASES: EXPERT EVIDENCE NOT ALWAYS NECESSARY

PROVING HANDWRITING IN CIVIL CASES: EXPERT EVIDENCE NOT ALWAYS NECESSARY

August 8, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Members Content

I am returning to the decision of Chief Master Marsh in  44 Wellfit Street Ltd v GMR Services Ltd [2017] EWHC 1841 (Ch). We have already looked at that case in relation to false emails and the significance of CPR 32.19 ….

THE STRENGTH OF ENGLISH LAW: GUIDANCE WHICH NEEDS TO BE GIVEN AT HOME NOT JUST ABROAD

THE STRENGTH OF ENGLISH LAW: GUIDANCE WHICH NEEDS TO BE GIVEN AT HOME NOT JUST ABROAD

August 4, 2017 · by gexall · in Access to justice, Case Management, Civil evidence, Members Content

The Courts and Tribunals service have today  produced a short guide – essentially selling the English courts* and the UK Jurisdiction. In essence it is a marketing booklet to persuade foreign litigants to use court in the UK and to…

THE JOB OF THE COURT IN CIVIL CASES: A USEFUL PRIMER: ADJUDICATION, THE BURDEN OF PROOF: THE JUDGE DOES NOT DECIDE WHO HAS THE MORAL HIGH GROUND

THE JOB OF THE COURT IN CIVIL CASES: A USEFUL PRIMER: ADJUDICATION, THE BURDEN OF PROOF: THE JUDGE DOES NOT DECIDE WHO HAS THE MORAL HIGH GROUND

August 3, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content

In Ball & Ors v Ball & Ors [2017] EWHC 1750 (Ch) HHJ Paul Matthews (sitting as a Judge of the High Court) set out clearly and succinctly the principles by which the civil courts determine cases. They serve as a…

"MUST" MEANS "MUST": WHEN  CRUCIAL PARTS OF YOUR EVIDENCE AMOUNTS TO NO MORE THAN GOSSIP AND RUMOUR IT CAN BE COSTLY.

“MUST” MEANS “MUST”: WHEN CRUCIAL PARTS OF YOUR EVIDENCE AMOUNTS TO NO MORE THAN GOSSIP AND RUMOUR IT CAN BE COSTLY.

August 2, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

I have already written that there are many reasons litigators should read the judgment of Lady Justice Thirwall in Marsh -v- Ministry of Justice [2017] EWHC 1040 (QB) (the subsequent judgment on costs is also worth reading and will be covered soon)….

A MATTER OF EVIDENCE AND A MATTER OF FACT: CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE ACTION WITH "AN OBVIOUS LACUNA IN THE DEFENDANT'S CASE"

A MATTER OF EVIDENCE AND A MATTER OF FACT: CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE ACTION WITH “AN OBVIOUS LACUNA IN THE DEFENDANT’S CASE”

August 2, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Clinical Negligence, Members Content, Witness statements

Last year I wrote a series of posts about the seminal case of Whitehouse -v- Jordan. The aim was to point out that the essence of the decision was about findings of fact not legal principle.  The House of Lords upheld…

FALSE EMAILS, METADATA AND  CPR 32.19:  A "PROCESS OF FALSIFICATION AND KNOWINGLY PUTTING FORWARD EVIDENCE THAT IS FALSE"

FALSE EMAILS, METADATA AND CPR 32.19: A “PROCESS OF FALSIFICATION AND KNOWINGLY PUTTING FORWARD EVIDENCE THAT IS FALSE”

August 1, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Disclosure, Members Content

 The case of 44 Wellfit Street Ltd v GMR Services Ltd [2017] EWHC 1841 (Ch) was described by Chris Dale as being  “like one a much-expanded version of those old-style Finals questions with kitchen sink thrown in”.  The judgment of Chief…

MEMORIES, WITNESS STATEMENTS AND EVIDENCE: A SCIENTIFIC VIEW: WHAT EXPERTS WISH YOU KNEW

MEMORIES, WITNESS STATEMENTS AND EVIDENCE: A SCIENTIFIC VIEW: WHAT EXPERTS WISH YOU KNEW

July 30, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

I have written before about the issue of memory and witness evidence.  I have also written about the work of  Dr Julia Shaw on this subject.  More guidance can be found in her article in the Scientific American  What Experts…

WITNESS STATEMENTS DIRECT: MEMORY, GESTMIN £15 MILLION AND QUITE A LOT OF ALCOHOL: A HEADY BREW

WITNESS STATEMENTS DIRECT: MEMORY, GESTMIN £15 MILLION AND QUITE A LOT OF ALCOHOL: A HEADY BREW

July 27, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

There is a certain appropriateness in one of the last major first-instance judgments of Mr Justice Leggatt being about witness credibility and the Gestmin criteria. In Blue -v- Ashley [2017] EWHC 1928 (Comm) Gestmin figured heavily. Everyone believed they were…

UNDOUBTED FLAWS IN THE WAY WITNESS STATEMENTS WERE DRAFTED: LEADS TO A WASTE OF TIME AND COSTS

UNDOUBTED FLAWS IN THE WAY WITNESS STATEMENTS WERE DRAFTED: LEADS TO A WASTE OF TIME AND COSTS

July 22, 2017 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Members Content, Striking out, Witness statements

There are many reasons litigators should read the judgment of Lady Justice Thirwall in Marsh -v- Ministry of Justice [2017] EWHC 1040 (QB,  Here I want to concentrate upon the witness statements, in particular the defendant’s witness statements. It is another…

PROTECTING YOURSELF AGAINST A WITNESS THAT BLAMES YOU: A CASE TO POINT

PROTECTING YOURSELF AGAINST A WITNESS THAT BLAMES YOU: A CASE TO POINT

July 20, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

I have written before about the problems that can arise when a witness “turns” on the person who prepared their witness statement. An errant witness will often blame the person who took the statement. This issue can be seen, with…

ERRANT EVIDENCE AND PHYSICAL  EVIDENCE THAT GOES MISSING:  CLAIMANT'S EXPERTS FEEL THE HEAT

ERRANT EVIDENCE AND PHYSICAL EVIDENCE THAT GOES MISSING: CLAIMANT’S EXPERTS FEEL THE HEAT

July 18, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

I am returning for the fifth time to the decision of Mr Justice Fraser in Imperial Chemical Industries Limited -v- Merit Merrell Technology Limited [2017] EWHC 1763 (TCC).  We have seen the judge’s views on the witnesses, the claimant’s disclosure and arguments that…

COUNSEL'S OPINION OF NO VALUE AT ALL: (ON THIS OCCASION ANYWAY)

COUNSEL’S OPINION OF NO VALUE AT ALL: (ON THIS OCCASION ANYWAY)

July 16, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Written advocacy

I am returning for the fourth time (and still  not the last time) to the decision of Mr Justice Fraser in Imperial Chemical Industries Limited -v- Merit Merrell Technology Limited [2017] EWHC 1763 (TCC).  The parties had exchanged written opinions of leading counsel…

THE DANGERS OF SELECTIVE WITNESS EVIDENCE:  WITNESS EVIDENCE THAT WAS "UNSATISFACTORY" AND "SIMPLY NOT RELIABLE"

THE DANGERS OF SELECTIVE WITNESS EVIDENCE: WITNESS EVIDENCE THAT WAS “UNSATISFACTORY” AND “SIMPLY NOT RELIABLE”

July 16, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

I am returning for the third time (and not the last time) to the decision of Mr Justice Fraser in Imperial Chemical Industries Limited -v- Merit Merrell Technology Limited [2017] EWHC 1763 (TCC). We have already looked at the (relatively mild) criticisms of…

DEFICIENCIES IN DISCLOSURE: READING THIS JUDGMENT IS NOT LIKE WATCHING PAINT DRY

DEFICIENCIES IN DISCLOSURE: READING THIS JUDGMENT IS NOT LIKE WATCHING PAINT DRY

July 14, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Disclosure, Members Content

A case that concerns the fitting of specialist piping at a paint factory may seem an unlikely starting point for procedural controversy. However I am looking again in the judgment of Mr Justice Fraser in Imperial Chemical Industries Limited -v- Merit…

BUNDLES WERE A DOG'S DINNER: MISSING WITNESSES AND AN EXPERT WITH NO CONCEPT OF HIS DUTY TO THE COURT

BUNDLES WERE A DOG’S DINNER: MISSING WITNESSES AND AN EXPERT WITH NO CONCEPT OF HIS DUTY TO THE COURT

July 12, 2017 · by gexall · in Bundles, Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Witness statements

The judgment of Mr Justice Coulson in Bank of Ireland -v- Watts Group PLC   [2017]EWHC 1667 (TCC) exemplifies many of the issues in litigation that are regularly covered in this blog: bundles, missing witnesses and errant experts. In particular…

ABSENT WITNESSES CONSIDERED: REASONS FOR ABSENCE NOT ACCEPTED COMPARED TO CIVIL EVIDENCE ACT NOTICE

ABSENT WITNESSES CONSIDERED: REASONS FOR ABSENCE NOT ACCEPTED COMPARED TO CIVIL EVIDENCE ACT NOTICE

July 11, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

In Coreix Ltd -v- Coretx Holdings [2017] EWHC 1695 (IPEC)  the trial judge was faced with the approach that should be adopted in relation to witnesses that were not at trial. THE CASE The action was a for breach of trademark…

JUDGES, FACT FINDING AND GRENFELL: THE CRUCIAL QUESTION – IS THIS JUDGE A GOOD FACT FINDER

July 10, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Uncategorized, Witness statements

If you write a blog on civil procedure it is not hard to steer a course away from the issues of the day.  However there is one issue of the day that is hard to ignore. The criticisms of the…

EVIDENCE OF PREVIOUS EXPERT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE DISCLOSED: THE IMPORTANCE OF THE REASON FOR THE CHANGE OF EXPERT

EVIDENCE OF PREVIOUS EXPERT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE DISCLOSED: THE IMPORTANCE OF THE REASON FOR THE CHANGE OF EXPERT

July 3, 2017 · by gexall · in Case Management, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Expert evidence, Members Content

In Condor Vilca & ors -v- Xstrata Limited [2017] EWHC 582 (QB) Mr Justice Stuart-Smith rejected an application that a party disclose its previous expert evidence when it needed to change its choice of expert. The reason for the change…

← Previous 1 … 38 39 40 … 50 Next →

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email. Subscription notifies you of a new post, it does not give you access to members' content.

Join 12.2K other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • A FITTING END TO THE BAYEUX THEMED WEEK: SHOULD FRANCE HAVE JURISDICTION IN THIS CASE? MORE ABOUT LAWYERS USING WITNESS STATEMENTS TO PUT FORWARD LEGAL ARGUMENTS (DO IT IF YOU WILL – BUT IT NEVER HELPS…)
  • COST BITES 451 : INTEREST ON COSTS A RECENT JUDGMENT, A REVIEW OF POSTS AND A USEFUL CHECKLIST FOR THE RECEIVING PARTY
  • THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 92: THE NEED TO PROVIDE PARTICULARS OF SIGNIFICANT ALLEGATIONS: DEFENDANTS’ (LARGELY) SUCCESSFUL REQUEST FOR FURTHER INFORMATION NEEDED BEFORE THEY FILED A DEFENCE
  • THROWBACK FRIDAY: “OFFICE GOSSIP PROVES NOTHING”: THE IMPORTANCE OF THE SOURCE OF INFORMATION AND BELIEF” (SEPTEMBER 2016)
  • WHEN CHAT GPT DRAFTED A “SKELETON” ARGUMENT – 300 PAGES AND 132,000 WORDS LONG: THE LITIGANT RETAINS RESPONSIBILITY AND MUST COMPLY WITH THE RULES

Top Posts

WHEN CHAT GPT DRAFTED A "SKELETON" ARGUMENT - 300 PAGES AND 132,000 WORDS LONG: THE LITIGANT RETAINS RESPONSIBILITY AND MUST COMPLY WITH THE RULES
SERVICE POINTS 54: THE CLAIMANT FAILED TO SERVE A SEALED CLAIM FORM IN TIME: THERE WAS NO OBLIGATION ON A DEFENDANT TO MAKE AN APPLICATION UNDER CPR 7.7: THE ACTION BITES THE DUST
WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: THOSE WHO DRAFTED THE WITNESS STATEMENTS "HAVE FORGOTTEN WHAT THE ROLE OF THE WITNESS STATEMENT IS": A USEFUL CHECKLIST AND LINKS TO KEEP YOU ON THE STRAIGHT AND NARROW
ADVISING THE CLIENT OF THE RISKS OF LITIGATION: TEN USEFUL CHECKLISTS COUPLED WITH THE RELEVANT LINKS
COURT REFUSES DEFENDANTS' APPLICATIONS TO AMEND AND TO RESILE FROM ADMISSIONS: A SUBMISSION THAT "WELL WE WERE LYING WHEN WE SIGNED THOSE STATEMENTS OF TRUTH" IS NOT A GOOD STARTING PLACE

Archives

Blogroll

  • Fatal Accident Law
  • Legal Futures
  • Personal injury: Liability and Damages

Books

  • Munkman & Exall on Damages for Personal Injuries and Death 15th ed
  • The APIL Guide to Fatal Accidents 4th edition

Useful Links

  • Buntools (for preparing PDF Bundles)
  • Kings Chambers
  • Kings Chambers Costs & Litigation Funding
  • Kings Chambers Serious Injury
  • The Civil Procedure Rules
  • The Law Society Gazette
  • The National Archives Recently Published Judgments
  • The Senior Court Costs Office Guide 2025
  • www.Bailii.org

Copyright

© Gordon Exall, Exall Legal Training, Civil Litigation Brief, 2013-2026. Unauthorised use and or duplication of the material contained on this blog without permission is strictly prohibited.
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.

To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Membership Terms and Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Advertising Policy
  • Copyright
  • Legal Disclaimer

Copyright © 2026 Civil Litigation Brief ®

Powered by Big Yellow Workshop

Loading Comments...

You must be logged in to post a comment.