PROVING THINGS 198: “NOT RELIABLE EVIDENCE”: THOSE EMAILS MAY NOT BE ALL THEY SEEM
In Richards v Harvey [2021] EWHC 21 (Ch) HHJ Cooke, doubted the authenticity of emails relied upon by the claimant. It is a reminder of the importance of a notice to prove. “This document is not reliable evidence of…
THE APPROACH OF THE COURT AT TRIAL WHEN A PARTY HAS NOT GIVEN DISCLOSURE: THE BENEFIT OF DOUBT IS AGAINST THEM
In Aegean Baltic Bank SA v Renzlor Shipping Ltd [2020] EWHC 2851 (Comm) Mr Adrian Beltrami QC (sitting as a Judge of the High Court) considered the appropriate approach at trial when a party has been debarred from calling evidence….
CHALLENGING THE AUTHENTICITY OF DOCUMENTS: A REMINDER OF THE BASIC RULES: IF YOU DON’T DISPUTE YOU ARE DEEMED TO ADMIT AUTHENTICITY
Earlier posts have looked at the importance of serving a notice of non-admittance of the authenticity of documents promptly. Here we look at the basics of the rule. Put bluntly if you do not serve a notice that you wish…
RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS GRANTED FOLLOWING FAILURES ON DISCLOSURE: THE DEPP TRIAL IS BACK AFLOAT
Last week I wrote on the latest episode of the Depp case. Mr Justice Nicol held that there had been a failure to comply with a peremptory order on disclosure and the Mr Depp’s case stood struck out. Today it…
BREACH OF A COURT ORDER ABOUT DISCLOSURE: THE STATEMENT OF TRUTH AND GOING TO PRISON (FOR QUITE A WHILE)
The judgment in Centek Holdings Ltd & Anor v Giles [2020] EWHC 1682 (Ch) is another example of why parties should take the statement of truth, and compliance with a court order, seriously. THE CLAIM The claimant brought proceedings against…
DEPP, DISCLOSURE, TEXT & TESTS: CASE STRUCK OUT BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH PEREMPTORY ORDER : CLAIMANT’S CASE NOW ALL AT SEA
In Depp v News Group Newspapers Ltd & Anor [2020] EWHC 1689 (QB) Mr Justice Nicol held that the claimant’s case stood struck out because of a failure to give disclosure. There are important observations about the scope of disclosure….
PRE-ACTION DISCLOSURE: CONDUCT, DISCRETION AND THE “FISHING EXPEDITION” ANALOGY MAY NOT BE A GOOD ONE
It is relatively rare for there to be a High Court judgment on the issue of pre-action disclosure. In Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd v Harron Homes Ltd [2020] EWHC 1190 (TCC) Mr Justice Fraser had some interesting observations on the…
COVID REPEATS 8: “NEVER WRITE ANYTHING DOWN THAT YOU WOULDN’T WANT READ OUT IN OPEN COURT”
I am repeating this because it is important. One rule that every lawyer should learn is that if you write, type, email or text anything you live with the risk that it could end up being read out in court….
THE SOLICITOR’S DUTY TO REVIEW THE DOCUMENTS IN LITIGATION: AN INTERESTING POSTSCRIPT
There is an interesting postcript to the judgment of Jon Turner Q.C. (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) in Square Global Ltd v Leonard [2020] EWHC 1008 (QB. “It is fundamental that the client must not make the selection…
DEFENCE STRUCK OUT FOLLOWING FAILURE TO GIVE FULL DISCLOSURE: SEVERE SANCTION WAS NOT DISPROPORTIONATE
In MKG Convenience Ltd, Re [2020] EWHC 547 (Ch) HHJ David Cooke refused the defendants’ application for relief from sanctions following a failure to comply with a peremptory order in relation to disclosure. The sanction was severe, however the circumstances…
THE DISCLOSURE PILOT: GUIDANCE GIVEN AS TO HOW IT SHOULD WORK: NOT A STICK WITH WHICH TO BEAT YOUR OPPONENT
There are two recent cases where the disclosure pilot is considered in detail. In McParland & Partners Ltd & Anor v Whitehead [2020] EWHC 298 (Ch) Sir Geoffrey Vos. Chancellor of the High Court set out some definitive guidance as…
GDPR AND THE CIVIL LITIGATOR (1) : USEFUL LINKS FOR LITIGATORS
The post earlier this week that highlighted the fact that an applicant had spent £40,000 unsuccessfully trying to obtain documents that would have been freely available under GDPR has led me to contemplate a series of articles on litigators and…
SEEKING FURTHER DISCLOSURE: DON’T GO IMPORTING STONES FROM A NEIGHBOURING QUARRY: DISCLOSURE PILOT PREVAILS
In Maher v Maher & Anor [2019] EWHC 3613 (Ch) HHJ Hodge (sitting as a High Court Judge) refused an application for disclosure. There are a number of important points here, including the need for an application for further disclosure to…
APPLICATION FOR PRE-ACTION DISCLOSURE: COURT’S DISCRETION EXERCISED AGAINST THE APPLICANT
In Hussain v Medical Defence Union & Anor [2020] EWHC 157 (QB) Clive Sheldon QC (sitting as a High Court judge) refused an application for pre-action disclosure. This judgment makes it clear that pre-action disclosure is, ultimately, a matter of…
MAKING FINDINGS ON THE BASIS OF THE LIST OF DOCUMENTS ALONE: THE MACKENZIE PERPLEX
There is one aspect of the judgement in Mackenzie v Alcoa Manufacturing (Gb) Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 2110 that requires a little more attention. That is is the question of how parties, faced with the absence of documents and where…
WHY PROCEDURAL RULES ARE IMPORTANT (AND LEAD TO SUBSTANTIVE JUSTICE): “JUDGES ARE NOT SUPERHUMAN, AND DO NOT POSSESS SUPERNATURAL POWERS”
In Paralel Routs Ltd v Fedotov [2019] EWHC 2656 (Ch) HHJ Paul Matthews (sitting as a judge of the High Court) emphasised the importance of procedural rules. There are quite a few interesting observations in relation to disclosure, redaction, civil…
THE TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD HAVE FOUND THAT THE CLAIMANT WAS FUNDAMENTALLY DISHONEST: INADEQUATE DISCLOSURE LEADS TO QOCS BEING DISAPPLIED
In Haider v DSM Demolition Ltd [2019] EWHC 2712 (QB) Mr Justice Julian Knowles refused a claimant’s appeal against a finding that the defendant was not negligent. He granted the defendant relief from sanctions and allowed an appeal against a…
PROVING THINGS 161: DOCUMENTS BEING DELIBERATELY DESTROYED AND EXPERTS WHO WERE OF VERY LIMITED ASSISTANCE
The judgment in Bajaj Healthcare Ltd v Fine Organics Ltd [2019] EWHC 2316 (Ch) is in what could appear to be a fairly dry dispute about the supply of goods. As the judge observed this was not a simple sale…
DISCLOSURE OF DOCUMENTS MENTIONED IN WITNESS STATEMENTS: MENTION MUST MEAN “SPECIFICALLY MENTION”
The judgment in Rudd v Bridle & Anor [2019] EWHC 1986 (QB) also considered, and rejected, the claimant’s application for specific disclosure of documents. Mr Justice Warby held that for an order to be made under CPR 31.15 there must be…
COURT REFUSES TO MAKE ORDER THAT A DEFENDANT DISCLOSES FUNDING ARRANGEMENTS
In Rudd v Bridle & Anor [2019] EWHC 1986 (QB) Mr Justice Warby refused a claimant’s application for disclosure of the defendants’ funding arrangements. “Beyond this is the common-sense point, that the Court will not be keen to allow…
