WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: COURT STRIKES OUT PARTS OF DEFENDANT’S WITNESS STATEMENT AS NON COMPLIANT WITH PD57AC (AND THE DEFENDANT IS A BARRISTER…)
This case adds to the growing number of cases where the courts have considered whether a witness statement breaches PD 57AC and the consequences for breach. The defendant’s initial statement contained numerous breaches of PD57. A revised statement was more…
THE MAZUR DECISION TODAY 5: THE “NUANCED” BITS: IT IS ALL ABOUT DELEGATION OF TASKS AND SUPERVISION (AND HERE IT IS OVER TO THE REGULATORS…)
I have already written that the judgement is Mazur is far more nuanced than many commentators have suggested. It does not give a “free for all” for non-authorised persons to litigate. Rather it gives authorised lawyers the ability to delegate…
THE MAZUR DECISION TODAY 4: THE CONCLUSIONS: IF AN UNATHORISED PERSON IS IN REALITY CONDUCTING THE LITIGATION “THEY WILL BE COMMITTING AN OFFENCE”
The judgment in Mazur today is far more nuanced than some observers have suggested. It is not an “as we were” situation. There is still scope for those working within solicitors’ practices to be breaking the law and thus committing…
MAZUR COURT OF APPEAL DECISION TODAY: JUDGMENT AT FIRST INSTANCE OVERTURNED: THE SUPERVISION OF UNAUTHORISED PERSONS
I will be writing about this judgment throughout the day. The first posts will contain a summary of the views from the court. Later posts will analyse the position as a whole. This post contains a consideration of the carrying…
MORE USE OF AI: MORE HALLUCINATED CASES: THERE IS “NO PROBLEM” IN USING AI: BUT CONSIDERABLE CARE HAS TO BE TAKEN
If these issues continue as they have been we may soon be seeing an “AI Tuesday” to add to the other themes we examine throughout the week. Here we look at another “hallucination” case which ended with the person involved…
PROVING THINGS 285: THE DEFENDANT ESTABLISHES THAT THE CLAIMANT WAS FUNDAMENTALLY DISHONEST: “IT IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH QOCS TO EXTEND IT TO CLAIMANTS WHO KNOWINGLY TELL UNTRUTHS ABOUT SOMETHING FUNDAMENTAL TO THEIR CLAIM…”
This is a judgment on fundamental dishonesty where the judge considers, in some detail, the burden of proof and what a defendant needs to establish. There are important observations about the burden of proof and consideration of the term “dishonesty”…
THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 65: THE REASON WHY PLEADINGS ARE IMPORTANT IN ALL TYPES OF CASES: “IF THE DEFENDANT FEELS SHE HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH ANY PART OF HER CASE BY REASON OF INADEQUATE PLEADINGS … SHE MAY NEED TO TAKE THAT UP WITH HER SOLICITORS…”
I appreciate that today has been a “pleadings heavy” day on this site. However the reason for this is that pleadings are important across the board. Earlier today we looked at pleadings in a multi-million pound dispute between two banks. Here…
MASTERING PD57AC – GETTING WITNESS STATEMENTS RIGHT IN THE COMMERCIAL COURTS (AND THE CONSEQUENCES IF YOU DON’T): WEBINAR 30th APRIL 2026
Witness statements can make—or break—your case in the Commercial Courts. Since the introduction of Practice Direction 57AC in April 2021, the courts have repeatedly emphasised that compliance is not optional. Yet many practitioners continue to fall into the same costly…
BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: GIVING THE SOURCE OF INFORMATION AND BELIEF IN A WITNESS STATEMENT: A MANDATORY OBLIGATION OFTEN IGNORED
It is surprisingly common to see witness statements that fail to comply with the basic – and mandatory – requirement that the maker of the statement gives the source of any matters of information or belief they are giving evidence…
HOW A FIRM OF SOLICITORS SHOULD NOT CONDUCT THEMSELVES IN LITIGATION: A WORKING EXAMPLE: EVIDENCE THAT WAS “GENERALLY UNRRELIABLE” AND “LACKING IN CREDIBILITY”
Here we are looking at a judgment that contains some remarkable observations and findings about the conduct of a solicitor. The judge was concerned not only about the failure to comply with directions, the inadequate nature of the statement of…
PROVING THINGS 284: APPLICANT FOR INJUNCTION FAILS ON JUST ABOUT EVERY POINT: THE CASE WAS DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND; NO EVIDENCE OF A RISK OF DISSIPATION; MATTERS THAT LEAVE THE JUDGE “BAFFLED” AND UNCOMFORTABLE
The applicant in this case sought an injunction. The application was (unusually) made on notice. The respondent did not have the opportunity to put in evidence. The applicant failed on just about every point. It was unclear what the applicant’s…
EXPERT WATCH 42: THIS IS NOT EXPERT EVIDENCE – BUT A SIMPLE STEP UP FROM “NUMBER CRUNCHING” : ALSO OPINION EVIDENCE SHOULD BE DISTINGUISHED FROM FACTUAL EVIDENCE
Here we have a case where the judge found evidence provided by experts to be of “assistance” but where he was clear in his view that the information put forward was not expert evidence. The evidence was “simply a kind…
SOLICITORS REFERRALS, TOMLIN ORDERS, UNLAWFUL TERMS, ADMISSIONS AND ATTEMPTS TO WITHDRAW FROM THOSE ADMISSIONS: A LOT OF LEGAL LIFE IS HERE…
There have been many interesting cases relating to “admissions” on this site. Here we have a intriguing case relating to a solicitor’s dispute with a former member of staff. It involves Tomlin orders which were partially unlawful, admissions and attempts…
WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: MAKING ASSERTIONS WITH NO CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE LEADS TO APPLICATION BEING REJECTED: THE EVIDENCE WAS SO “UNSPECIFIC” THAT IT FAILED TO PROVE THE APPLICANT’S CONCERNS
Here we look at the judge’s assessment of the evidence produced in support of an application that details of the applicant should not be disclosed. The judge held that the evidence was “unspecific” and was not corroborated. There was a…
COURT ORDER PREVENTS CLAIMANTS FROM SENDING COURT DOCUMENTS TO CERTAIN PARTIES: THE CLAIMANT’S CONDUCT AMOUNTED TO AN ABUSE OF PROCESS OF THE COURT: THE DEROGATION FROM THE OPEN JUSTICE PRINCIPLE IS JUSTIFIED
Here we have an unusual order under CPR 31.22 (2) made in unusual circumstances. The claimant was precented from sending documents disclosed to in proceedings, and mentioned in open court, to various specified entities. It is a reminder of the…
THE APPELLATE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE ALLOWED THE APPELLANTS TO RUN A NEW ISSUE : THE ABILITY TO PAY COSTS IS AN IMPORTANT FACTOR AND WAS NOT CONSIDERED PROPERLY
Here we have a case where the appellants were, initially, allowed to argue a point that had not been argued in the court below. The Court of Appeal was clear in its view that the judge should not have allowed…
THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 61: CLAIM FOR LIBEL WAS NOT PROPERLY PLEADED: “MUCH OF THIS ESSENTIAL DETAIL IS MISSING”
As we shall see there are very strict and precise requirements for pleading libel. There are numerous cases where the claimant has failed to get past the preliminary stages because of inadequate pleadings. We look at such a case here….
HALLUCINATIONS KEEP APPEARING IN THE REPORTS: TWO MORE EXAMPLES: COUNSEL AT FAULT IN BOTH…
We are looking at two more examples of “hallucinated” cases appearing in reported cases. In both cases it was counsel that was presenting the case. (In one case counsel was acting for himself). “The incident does, however, demonstrate vividly the…
PROVING THINGS 283: FAILING TO ESTABLISH A CLAIM FOR PROVISIONAL DAMAGES FOR ONE SET OF SYMPTOMS BUT ESTABLISHING IT IN ANOTHER
There are relatively few judgments in which the law and practice relating to provisional damages are considered in detail. We have such a case here. Further it is an example of the claimant failing to establish provisional damages in relation…
BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: THE NEED TO SERVE A NOTICE DISPUTING THE AUTHENTICITY OF A DOCUMENT: CPR 32.19
Here we look at a case that illustrates a very basic principle of civil procedure and evidence. It is a case where the claimant was, in essence, disputing the authenticity of several documents. However a basic procedural step had not…
NEW EDITION OF THE KING’S BENCH GUIDE: WHERE TO FIND IT AND THE SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
A new edition of the King’s Bench Guide has been published. There are many useful points for litigators, in particular using CE-FILE, the new email addresses and some corrected links. “The Guide does not have the status of a Practice…
CIVIL LITIGATION BRIEF HAS ITS OWN LINKEDIN PAGE (“ABOUT TIME TOO” – APPARENTLY)
Civil Litigation Brief now has its own LinkedIn page. It is another way of following the posts on this site. Posts will be posted as they are published and it is another way of being able to keep up to…
CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CORNER 7: CLAIM FOR PSYCHIATRIC INJURY AS A RESULT OF BEING PRESENT AT BIRTH WAS STRUCK OUT: TESTING THE PARAMETERS OF PAUL -v- WOLVERHAMPTON
This case represents an attempt to sidestep the decision in Paul v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust [2024] UKSC 1. As we shall see it was not successful. This is one of the first, if not the first, reported case since…
WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY II: A STATEMENT THAT WAS “BASED ON A COMBINATION OF SPECULATION AND DOUBLE, TRIPLE OR EVEN MORE REMOTE HEARSAY”
We have looked at many cases in which judges have been critical of the way in which witness statements are drafted. This case is one of the most clear and extreme examples. The defendant (a firm of solicitors) failed to…
WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: YOU ARE DEFINITELY NOT TELLING LIES – BUT I STILL DON’T BELIEVE YOU: CREDIBILITY IS NOT NECESSARILY THE SAME AS HONESTY…
One of the most difficult things to explain to clients and witnesses is that they may well believe they are telling the truth. They may well not be liars. However this does not mean that the court will accept their…
PROVING THINGS 282: THE INJURED CLAIMANT ADDUCED NO EVIDENCE OF NEGLIGENCE (SOMETHING ABOUT PLEADINGS TOO…)
Here we look at a Privy Council decision in a personal injury case. The claimant lost at first instance, the defendant having elected to call no evidence. What is interesting about this case is the constant motif in the judgment…
EXPERT WATCH 41: THE COURT OF APPEAL REFUSES TO OVERTURN A DECISION WHERE THE “WRONG” TYPE OF JOINT EXPERT WAS INSTRUCTED
This is an unusual case where, after the event, a party to the litigation argued that the court had relied on the “wrong” type of expert evidence. An educational psychologist had been instructed as a joint expert whereas what was…
CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CORNER 6: CLAIMANT FAILS TO ESTABLISH CAUSATION: STATISTICAL RISK REDUCTION DOES NOT SATISFY THE BURDEN OF PROOF
Establishing causation is a key element of many clinical negligence cases. Here we have a case where the issue of causation was put in two ways: the “but for” test and alternatively the “indivisible injury” test. The claimant did not…
EXPERT WATCH 40: THE TRIAL JUDGE DID NOT ACCEPT THE EVIDENCE OF THE JOINTLY INSTRUCTED WITNESS: “THE DUTY OF THE COURT IS TO APPLY THE BURDEN OF PROOF AND TO FIND THE FACTS HAVING REGARD TO ALL THE EVIDENCE IN THE CASE…”
This is a case where the judge did not accept the views of a jointly instructed expert as to the authenticity of a document that was central to the case. The expert did not have access to all the relevant…
RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS REFUSED AFTER CLAIMANT FAILS TO COMPLY WITH PEREMPTORY ORDER FOR DISCLOSURE: “THE CONSEQUENCE IS THAT THE PROCEEDINGS ARE STRUCK OUT”
Here we look at the “second half” of the decision considered in the previous post. Having rejected the claimant’s submissions that breaches of a peremptory order should be considered under CPR 3.10 the judge then went on to consider the…
THE BREACH OF A PEREMPTORY ORDER IS A SERIOUS MATTER: IT CANNOT SIMPLY BE DEALT WITH UNDER CPR 3.10
Here we look at an interesting, but eventually futile, about the approach the court should take when a party was in breach of a peremptory order. The claimant in breach argued that the court should consider the matter under CPR…
WITNESS EVIDENCE AND RELIABILITY: THE WITNESS WHO USED “SMART GLASSES” TO ASSIST IN GIVING ANSWERS TO CROSS-EXAMINATION
Here we have a case where the judge made clear findings that a witness had been using “smart glasses” when giving answers to cross-examination in court. It is another example of how technology can be mis-used during the trial process…
APPLICATION TO ADDUCE NEW WITNESS STATEMENT ON THE FIRST DAY OF THE TRIAL: DENTON PRINCIPLES APPLIED
A party who serves a witness statement late always has problems. A litigant who tries to introduce a new witness on the morning of the trial has major problems. We have such an application here. Unsurprisingly it did not fare…
CAN A DEFENDANT MAKE A PART 36 OFFER THAT ATTEMPTS TO BIND THE CLAIMANT IN RELATION TO MATTERS NOT PLEADED?
Here we have an interesting, and important, point about CPR Part 36. Firstly could a defendant establish that a claimant had not beaten a Part 36 offer when that offer dealt with matters that were not part of the pleaded…
WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: WHEN A CLIENT BLAMES THEIR SOLICITOR FOR ISSUES IN THE WITNESS STATEMENT: SOME EXAMPLES CONSIDERED
Occasionally I give in-house presentations on drafting witness statements. I always emphasise the importance of protecting the client from over-enthusiastic drafting by their lawyer to make sure that the witness statement is accurate and compliant. I then ask what steps…
WHEN CAN A JUDGE CHANGE THEIR MIND? THE PRINCIPLES CONSIDERED: AN “AMBUSH” LEADS TO A POINT BEING RECONSIDERED
Here we look at a case where the judge had given a decision on an issue but, on consideration, decided that their initial view may be wrong. The judgment sets out the relevant case law and principles in some detail….
THE QUESTION OF THE CLAIMANT’S CAPACITY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DEALT WITH AS A PRELIMINARY ISSUE: THE COURT SHOULD APPOINT A LITIGATION FRIEND – THIS DOES NOT PREJUDICE THE DEFENDANT’S POSITION
Here we have a case where a defendant appealed against a decision it agreed with. The judge found that the claimant had capacity and did not require a Litigation Friend. However the defendant’s issue was with the very decision to…
BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: EXHIBITS: A REMINDER OF THE RULES, WHERE THINGS GO WRONG AND HOW TO AVOID PROBLEMS
The “exhibiting” of documents to witness statements and affidavits is common. It is surprising how common it is for the exhibit, and the witness statement, to fail to comply with the rules. Here we look at the rules relating to…
AVOIDING THE PITFALLS WITH EXPERT EVIDENCE: WEBINAR 20th MARCH 2026: THE EXPERTS REPORT WAS “ALMOST WORSE THAN USELESS…”
We have seen some graphic examples in the past few weeks of a court robustly rejecting expert evidence adduced on behalf of a claimant. This webinar examines why expert evidence is not accepted, limited, or even wholly rejected at trial….
THROWBACK FRIDAY: LITIGATION: WHAT IS AN APPROPRIATE CASE LOAD – AND IS IT IMPORTANT? (MARCH 2016)
Here is a post from a decade ago with an issue that remains just as relevant today. What is an appropriate case load for litigators? How do we find the balance between economic survival and overloading, stress and the major…
EXPERT WATCH 39: WHEN THE HOME SECRETARY DID NOT CHALLENGE EXPERT EVIDENCE SHE CANNOT BE THAT SURPRISED WHEN THE COURT ACCEPTS IT
We are looking at another case where a party failed to challenge expert evidence. The Court of Appeal was clear in its view that if fault lay anywhere it was with the appellant’s failure to challenge the expert evidence that…
WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY II: WITNESS CREDIBILITY: THE PRINCIPLES IN TUI -V- GRIFFITHS DID NOT IMPACT ON THE ASSESSMENT OF A LAY WITNESS
Here we have an unusual argument where an appellant attempted to use the decision in Tui -v- Griffiths to argue that a tribunal should not have accepted the evidence of a lay witness. The evidence of the witness in question…
WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: EVIDENCE BY VIDEO LINK ALLOWED: IS THERE A GOOD REASON, DOES IT SERVE A LEGITIMATE AIM & IS IT CONSISTENT WITH THE OVERRIDING OBJECTIVE?
Here we have an unusual issue in an unusual (but high profile) case. The question was whether a witness could be permitted to give evidence by video link in circumstances where he was unable to attend court, but it was…
MAZUR MATTERS 53: JUDGE REFUSES TO GRANT A SPECIFIC OR GENERAL EXEMPTION TO AN EXPERIENCED LEGAL EXECUTIVE
One of the issues that has followed the Mazur decision arises from the fact that the statute gives the court a power to grant an exemption. Here the judge considered whether the power to grant an exemption should be granted…
PREPARING BUNDLES: A GUIDE FOR LITIGANTS IN PERSON (FAMILY GUIDANCE – BUT MUCH FOR OTHERS TO LEARN…)
We all know that the preparation of bundles can be a tricky job, even for legal professionals. The rules in relation to Bundles in family proceedings changed today. The Office of the President of the Family Division has published guidance…
ACTION STRUCK OUT BECAUSE OF APPLICANT’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH A PEREMPTORY ORDER: (THIS MAY WAKE YOU UP ON A MONDAY MORNING…)
Here we have a case, brought be a professional liquidator, which was struck out because of a failure to comply with a peremptory order as to disclosure. It serves as an object lesson in the need to educate a client…
BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: THE MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS FOR THE TOP RIGHT HAND CORNER OF ANY WITNESS STATEMENT OR AFFIDAVIT
Here we are looking at one of the basic rules for witness statements. Curiously it is ignored in about 40 – 50% of the statements I see in practice. Often the oversight is ignored. Some judges take a hard line….
AVOIDING THE PITFALLS: WITNESS EVIDENCE AND WITNESS STATEMENTS: WEBINAR 6th MARCH 2026
We have seen a lot of issues over the years in relation to the drafting of witness statements and presentation of witness evidence. There are many cases that illustrate the problems that arise. This webinar aims to head off those…
HOW FAR IS A CIVIL COURT BOUND (IF AT ALL) BY THE CONCLUSIONS IN ANOTHER CIVIL MATTER? THE ISSUE CONSIDERED IN THE HIGH COURT
Can a judge take into account findings of fact in a “related” civil action? That is the matter being considered here. The judge had to consider whether factual findings as to the employment status of the petitioner in Employment Tribunal…
THROWBACK FRIDAY: THE COURT OF APPEAL ON THE CREDIBILITY OF AN EXPERT WHO HAD HIDDEN THE FACT THAT THEY HAD BEEN A COLLEAGUE OF THE DEFENDANT (FEBRUARY 2017)
Here we look at a case where the Court of Appeal addressed the issue of witness credibility head on. An expert giving evidence for the defendant in a clinical negligence case failed to disclose the fact that he and the…
You must be logged in to post a comment.