ADVISING YOUR CLIENT ON LITIGATION RISKS 2 & 3 : RISKING IT ALL ON A RECOLLECTION OF A MEETING & THE WITNESS WHO GIVES A WHOLLY NEW ACCOUNT FROM THE WITNESS BOX
The judgment in Slade (t/a Richard Slade And Co) v Abbhi [2018] EWHC 2039 (Comm) (24 September 2018) illustrates another risk of litigation. The risk of a witness giving a wholly new account whilst giving evidence at trial. THE CASE The…
ADVISING ON LITIGATION RISKS 1: YOU CAN BE BELIEVED AS A WITNESS AND STILL LOSE YOUR CASE
Earlier posts have looked at the concept of “litigation risks”. This is something we are all aware of as practising lawyers. We advise on those risks on a daily basis. However very little is written about this. This is the…
BACK TO BASICS 15: CHALLENGING THE AUTHENTICITY OF DOCUMENTS: A PRIMER
In the 10th post in this series I 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…
PROVING THINGS 127: WRITTEN CONTRACT – WHAT WRITTEN CONTRACT? APPLICATION FOR AN INJUNCTION FAILS WHEN CLAIMANT CANNOT PROVE A CONTRACT WAS EVER SIGNED
The judgment of HHJ Neil Bidder QC in Tenon FM Ltd v Cawley & Ors [2018] EWHC 1972 (QB) shows a failure by a claimant to prove the most basic of issues. The claimant could not establish that a defendant had…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 13: WHAT IS MEANT BY WITNESS “CREDIBILITY”? WHY THIS IS OFTEN CENTRAL TO A LITIGATOR’S WORK
Many civil cases turn on witness credibility, yet very little training and education is given to lawyers about assessing credibility. Every litigator has to be able to make an assessment of this when taking a case on; before issuing proceedings…
DRAWING ADVERSE INFERENCES WHEN WITNESSES ARE ABSENT: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION TODAY: COURT HAS A DISCRETION AS TO THE INFERENCES TO BE DRAWN
I am grateful to barrister Luka Krsljanin for sending me a copy of hte Court of Appeal decision today in Manzi -v- King’s College NHS Foundation Trust [2018] EWCA Civ 1882. The Court rejected an argument that the trial judge…
PROVING THINGS 124: “PUT BLUNTLY: THAT EVIDENCE IS WHOLLY INADEQUATE”: DEFENDANT’S EVIDENCE ON AN INJUNCTION APPLICATION
In Jahangiri v St. George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2018] EWHC 2278 (QB) Mr Justice Nicklin observed that witness evidence put forward by the defendant was far from adequate. “The Court is best assisted when the evidence of someone who…
THE KIMATHI DECISION 4: THE APPROACH TO WITNESS EVIDENCE: MEMORIES ARE FLUID AND MALLEABLE: SOME KEY POINTS ON GESTMIN
This is the fourth in the series that looks at the decision in Kimathi & Ors v The Foreign And Commonwealth Office [2018] EWHC 2066 (QB). The trial judge was looking at evidence of matters that had happened some 50 years earlier,…
THE KIMATHI DECISION 3: THE EVIDENCE GATHERING PROCESS, STANDARD QUESTIONNAIRES AND THE USE OF LEADING QUESTIONS
This is the third in the series that looks at the decision in Kimathi & Ors v The Foreign And Commonwealth Office [2018] EWHC 2066 (QB). Here we look at the evidence gathering process, in particular the use of questionnaires and the…
CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE, ACCURATE EVIDENCE AND A REMARKABLE CHANGE OF ACCOUNT BY THE CLAIMANT’S WITNESS
The judgment in Britchford v Staffordshire And Stoke-On-Trent Partnership NHS Trust [2018] EWHC 2109 (QB) is another example of a clinical negligence claim that rested on the accuracy of medical evidence. A feature of the case is that the claimant did…
THE KIMATHI DECISION 2: TRANSLATORS ON TRIAL: ALSO A LOOK AT THE GUIDANCE ON TRANSLATING WITNESS STATEMENTS
This is the second in the series that looks at the decision in Kimathi & Ors v The Foreign And Commonwealth Office [2018] EWHC 2066 (QB). Here we look at issues relating to the translators. It shows the way in which the…
CHANGING WITNESS STATEMENTS: COMPARE AND CONTRAST: EDITING STATEMENTS CAN AFFECT CREDIBILITY
The judgment case of ML (A Child) v Guy’s And St Thomas’ National Healthcare Foundation Trust [2018] EWHC 2010 has an interesting passage on witness statements. It is an example of how early witness statements that were not initially disclosed can…
CIVIL PROCEDURE:BACK TO BASICS 9: THE COURT NOT ENTITLED TO REJECT WRITTEN EVIDENCE UNLESS IT IS “SIMPLY INCREDIBLE”
There is a short passage in Wards Solicitors v Hendawi [2018] EWHC 1907 (Ch) HHJ Paul Matthews (sitting as a judge of the High Court), that serves as a reminder of a basic principle in interlocutory proceedings – a court will not…
PROVING THINGS 119: WITNESSES & EXPERTS : “IN A CASE OF FAIRLY REMARKABLE REPORTS, THIS WAS THE MOST EXTRAORDINARY”
If you want to see an example of problematic witness statements, and even more problematic expert witnesses, then read the judgment of Mrs Justice Jefford DBE in Castle Trustee Ltd & Ors v Bombay Palace Restaurant Ltd [2018] EWHC 1602 (TCC). …
ADVOCACY: THE JUDGE’S VIEW SERIES 3 PART 6: MAY IT PLEASE YOU, MADAM: STORIES THAT EVERY LITIGATOR NEEDS TO KNOW…
In the sixth in this series we a looking at “May it please you Madam” by retired District Judge Neil Hickman. This is not designed as a guide for advocates, indeed the subtitle is “A little book of legal whimsy”. …
THE “TRUE VOICE OF THE WITNESSES ARE NOTABLY LACKING FROM THEIR WITNESS STATEMENTS”: INORDINATE AMOUNT OF TIME & COSTS SPENT FOR NO GOOD REASON
In Estera Trust (Jersey) Ltd & Anor v Singh & Ors [2018] EWHC 1715 (Ch) Mr Justice Fancourt made some telling observations about the usefulness of witness statements prepared for the case. This is a common observation in relation to witness…
PROVING THINGS 117: A DISHONEST POLICE OFFICER IS “MALICIOUS”: PROVING A CASE FOR MALICIOUS PROSECUTION AND MISFEASANCE IN PUBLIC OFFICE
In the judgment in Rees & Ors v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2018] EWCA Civ 1587 the Court of Appeal overturned a finding that a police force was not liable for malicious prosecution and misfeasance in public office because…
HOME SECRETARY REFUSED PERMISSION TO SERVE EVIDENCE LATE: THE OVERRIDING OBJECTIVE WAS USED EVEN IF DENTON DID NOT APPLY
In Teh v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWHC 1586 (Admin) the Secretary of State was refused permission to rely on evidence served late. The issue was decided under the Overriding Objective, rather than by reference to the…
PROVING THINGS 116: HONEST WITNESSES CAN BE WRONG: “INSIGNIFICANT EVENT” BECOMES “MAGNIFIED IN THE CLAIMANT’S MIND”
The judgment in Pauline Carter v Kingswood Learning And Leisure Group Limited [2018] EWHC 1616 (QB) shows a scenario where a claimant can be totally honest and credible, but still be wrong. “I am sure she is an honest person, but…
FIFTH BIRTHDAY REVIEW 10: THE PROVING THING SERIES: SIZE DON’T SEEM TO MATTER…
This is the last in the series looking back at key series of posts on this blog over the past five years. Keen observers will note that most series last for about 10 posts. When the “Proving Thing” series started…
FIFTH BIRTHDAY REVIEW 7: THE “BACK TO BASICS” SERIES
I am looking back at the posts that have been part of a series over the past five years. The “Back to Basics” posts are part of a series that is very much ongoing. The aim of each post is…
MORE ABOUT WITNESS STATEMENTS AND THE ICI CASE: WHEN EVIDENCE IS NOT ADMISSIBLE AND (WHEN IT IS) IT IS NOT RELIABLE
We are looking again at aspects of the judgment of Mr Justice Fraser in Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd v Merit Merrell Technology Ltd [2018] EWHC 1577 (TCC).The previous post in this case looked at the “duplicate” witness statements of the defendant. Here…
FIFTH BIRTHDAY REVIEW 5: THE JUDGE’S GUIDE TO ADVOCACY SERIES: TWO AND A HALF DONE
There are two completed series on judge’s guide to advocacy – and we are part way through the third. There is still plenty of material available and I wouldn’t be surprised if there is a fourth series. Advice has been…
WHEN LESSONS ARE NOT LEARNT: “IDENTICAL WITNESS STATEMENTS” : COPY AND PASTE FUNCTION OF A WORD PROCESSOR WILL NOT IMPRESS A JUDGE
It is worth looking in more detail at the the judgment of Mr Justice Fraser in Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd v Merit Merrell Technology Ltd [2018] EWHC 1577 (TCC). In particular on witness statements. The judgment sets out some important lessons (it…
DAMAGES CLAIMED BUT NOT PLEADED: REALLY STRANGE WITNESS STATEMENTS; PARTISAN EXPERTS: THE ICI CASE IS BACK IN COURT
If you are ever looking for an example of matters going awry in litigation then read the judgment of Mr Justice Fraser in Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd v Merit Merrell Technology Ltd [2018] EWHC 1577 (TCC). All the usual problematic issues…
5th BIRTHDAY REVIEW 2: WHAT THEY DON’T TEACH YOU AT LAW SCHOOL: 10 POSTS THAT STARTED ON A TRAIN STATION
I am continuing looking back at series on this blog over the past five years. A series of posts in early 2017 was probably the most “collaborative” work on this blog. Dozens of people participated in giving advice to law…
PROVING THINGS 115: WHEN HANDWRITTEN NOTES OF MEETINGS VARY FROM THE TYPED VERSION (AND THERE IS MORE…)
For the second time in recent weeks I am looking at how a judge assesses evidence in a family case. Again this shows issues of general importance and relevance in the relation of those responsible for gathering evidence in the…
PROVING THINGS 113: POOR EVIDENCE COLLECTION: EXPERTS STRAYING WELL BEYOND THEIR REMIT AND WHO ARE “NOT ENTITLED TO REACH THAT CONCLUSION”
Family cases, however, often come up with interesting observations in relation to the judge’s role as a fact finder. Similarly much can be gained by looking at the judge’s observations on experts. We see a critique of the process of…
WITNESS DEMEANOUR: NOT THAT IMPORTANT (INDEED PROBABLY UNIMPORTANT): COURT OF APPEAL DECISION
I am grateful to Laurie Anstis for drawing my attention to the decision of the Court of Appeal decision in SS (Sri Lanka), R (On the Application Of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWCA Civ 1391….
APPLICATION TO ADDUCE NEW EVIDENCE: COURT OF APPEAL WOULD NOT BE MOVED
In The National Guild of Removers & Storers Ltd v Bee Moved Ltd & Ors [2018] EWCA Civ 1302 the Court of Appeal refused the appellant’s application to adduce new evidence. It is a a case that highlights the difficulties of…
PROVING THINGS 107: PROVING A “STAGED CRASH” TO THE CRIMINAL STANDARD: CCTV EVIDENCE PROVIDES CONVINCING EVIDENCE
In Aviva Insurance Ltd v Nazir & Anor [2018] EWHC 1296 (QB) His Honour Judge Gosnell (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) found the two defendants in contempt of court when they had taken part in a staged crash and…
WITNESS STATEMENTS AND COST BUDGETS: “THEY WILL HAVE BECOME AN ARTIFICIAL CONSTRUCT OF THE LAWYERS”
There are some interesting observations in the judgment of Chief Master Marsh in Various Claimants v MGN Ltd [2018] EWHC 1244 (Ch). The way in which a witness statement is likely to be drafted can be considered at the cost budget…
CLAIMANTS WERE NOT CREDIBLE: DEFENDANT’S APPEAL SUCCESSFUL: “THE DEFENDANT PRESENTED AN ANSWERABLE CASE THAT THE CLAIMANTS FAILED TO PROVE THEIR CASE”
In Richards & Anor v Morris [2018] EWHC 1289 (QB) the defendant was successful in appealing on the grounds that the trial judge should have made more robust findings from the lack of credibility on the part of the claimants. There…
PROVING THINGS 1O2: FAILING TO PROVE CHANCE OF RECONCILIATION
A claimant in a fatal accident claim does not have to prove an entitlement to a dependency claim on the balance of probabilities. The court can, in appropriate cases, look at the case on the basis of loss of chance,…
PROVING THINGS 100: IT IS DIFFICULT TO PROVE ANYTHING WHEN EVERYONE IS LYING: “A FESTIVAL OF MENDACITY”
The judgment of Mr Justice Turner today in Rashid v Munir & Ors [2018] EWHC 1258 (QB) illustrates the difficult task of the trial judge when all of the witnesses are strangers to the truth. “Attempting to establish the common but…
EXPERTS AS ADVOCATES FOR THE CLAIMANTS’ CAUSE: WITNESSES WHOSE EVIDENCE WAS VERY DIFFERENT TO THEIR WITNESS STATEMENTS
I am grateful to Dominic Regan for sending me a copy of the judgment of Mrs Justice Andrews today in Gee -v- Depuy International Ltd [2018] EWHC 1208. The judgment is 762 paragraphs long and will be widely read by…
PROVING THINGS 97: AN APPROACH THAT WAS UTTERLY FLAWED AND HOPELESSLY CARELESS: WHEN SOLICITORS LETTERS BECAME PART OF A PROCESS OF UNLAWFUL HARRASSMENT
In Worthington & Anor v Metropolitan Housing Trust Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 1125 the Court of Appeal upheld a decision that a housing association had unlawfully harassed its own tenants. A major part of the problem came from the association’s highly…
PROVING THINGS 96: A WITNESS MAY NOT BE TELLING LIES – BUT THEIR MEMORY MAY WELL BE BIASED: ASSESSING EVIDENCE WHEN FRIENDS FALL OUT
One of the hardest tasks of litigation is trying to assess the credibility of a witness, particularly your own witness. Litigants can (and often do) have strong views about the case and what they said and did. The fact that…
CIVIL PROCEDURE: BACK TO BASICS 8: LEAVING VENOM OUT OF WITNESS STATEMENTS: A PEN DIPPED IN VITRIOL IS GOING TO COST YOU MONEY
It is surprising how many witness statements I have read (both in practice and in the reports) that contain invective material. Litigants appear to think it important, and effective, that they disparage their opponents. Litigants should be warned that this…
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. …
FAILING TO TAKE A PROPER PROOF OF EVIDENCE IS UNREASONABLE CONDUCT AND LEADS TO COSTS CONSEQUENCES FOR DEFENDANT – EVEN WHEN CLAIMANT DISCONTINUES
The judgment today in Harrap v Brighton & Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust [2018] EWHC 1063 (QB) illustrates the importance of taking adequate witness statements. It shows that a failure to review the situation and take a full proof of evidence…
YOUR CLAIM FORM IS, WELL, PRETTY DAMN HOPELESS – AND WITNESS EVIDENCE CAN’T PUT IT RIGHT
The observations made by Mr Justice Andrew Baker in Orascom Tmt Investments SARL v Veon Ltd [2018] EWHC 985 (Comm) are of general interest. They highlight the need for statements of case to be properly particularised and also highlight the dangerous…
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…
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…
ADVOCACY: THE JUDGE’S VIEW SERIES 3: PART 1: THERE IS A SPECIAL RING IN HELL FOR A CERTAIN TYPE OF ADVOCATE (& YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE)
I had no plans for a further series on judge’s advice advocacy. However my hand was forced. I had to share the talk given by Lord Justice Irwin given to the Professional Negligence Bar Association on the 17th April. It…
CIVIL PROCEDURE – BACK TO BASICS 4: WHAT NOT TO PUT IN A WITNESS STATEMENT: “INADMISSIBLE AND IRRELEVANT OPINION, SUBMISSION, SPECULATION AND INNUENDO”
This is a very basic point. A witness statement should consist of evidence. That principle is often breached in interlocutory applications, as we have seen. However when a lawyer does this, or allows it to happen, in a witness statement…
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…
You must be logged in to post a comment.