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…
CIVIL PROCEDURE – BACK TO BASICS 2: “EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT” OF AN APPLICATION
The previous post looked at some of the basic requirements of an application to the court. Here we look at the evidence that may be needed in support of an application. The key point here being “evidence”. Numerous hours are…
“PERSUASION”: APPLICATIONS & EVIDENCE: ATTEND A COURSE AND SUPPORT CHILDREN’S LITERACY: 18th APRIL 2018 – LINCOLN’S INN
On the 18th April 2018 I am involved in a talk at Hardwicke, in Lincoln’s Inn. With a number of my colleagues we are talking on “Persuasion” Applications and Evidence for Defendants and Insurers”. All proceeds go directly to a…
CIVIL LITIGATORS AND THE SECRET BARRISTER 4: WHY WE CAN’T TRUST THE GOVERNMENT (OR OURSELVES)
SB’s book sales plough on. It has reached the top 10 in the best seller list. The Criminal Bar Association have set up a fund to send a copy of the book to every MP. You can donate here. …
HOW A COURT ASSESSES WITNESS EVIDENCE: A SHORT PRIMER
We have already looked at the decision of the upper tribunal in Conegate Ltd v Revenue & Customs (CAPITAL GAINS TAX – purchase of shares) [2018] UKFTT 82 (TC) in relation to issues of privilege and without prejudice discussions. The same judgment…
WITHOUT PREJUDICE COMMUNICATIONS & WAIVING PRIVILEGE IN A WITNESS STATEMENT: TAXING MATTERS
A post earlier this week looked at the issue of privilege and the third edition of the standard work on the topic. It is worthwhile looking at the decision in Conegate Ltd v Revenue & Customs (CAPITAL GAINS TAX – purchase…
SIR RUPERT JACKSON ON THE DAY OF HIS RETIREMENT: A REVIEW OF SOME JUDGMENTS ON PROCEDURE
It is well known that Sir Rupert Jackson retires on the 7th March. There are several reviews of the work Sir Rupert has done in re-shaping civil procedure. Here I want to look at a few of his judgments that…
“MISSING WITNESSES”- THE INFERENCES TO BE DRAWN: THE USE OF YOUR OPPONENT’S WITNESS STATEMENTS – ITS ALL OR NOTHING
In Property Alliance Group Ltd v The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc [2018] EWCA Civ 355 the Court of Appeal considered, amongst other things, two issues relating to witness evidence. Firstly in relation to the inferences a court should draw from missing…
WITNESS CREDIBILITY 3: A JUDGMENT FROM TODAY: CREDIBILITY A CENTRAL PART OF THE CASE
This is the third post today about the subject of the assessment of witness credibility. By a curious piece of good planning it comes from a judgment today in Jiangsu Shagang Group Co Ltd v Loki Owning Company Ltd [2018] EWHC…
WITNESS CREDIBILITY 2: ACADEMIC SCRUTINY: PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH AND WITNESS EVIDENCE
Near the beginning of many judgments after a trial there is a section where the judge gives their view of the reliability and credibility of the witnesses. In about 98% of cases it is not necessary to read further to…
WITNESS CREDIBILITY 1: A STRUCTURED APPROACH: DEMEANOUR NOT DETERMINATIVE
This blog has looked at issues relating to witness credibility on many occasions. Here we look at a decision by the Upper Tribunal in KB & AH (credibility-structured approach : Pakistan) [2017] UKUT 491 (IAC). This is of general interest. Issues…
THE ASSESSMENT OF EVIDENCE: DECLARATIONS FOR THE DEFENDANT IN A PERSONAL INJURY CASE
The judgment of Master Thornett in Day v Bryant (declaratory relief – costs – QOCS) [2018] EWHC 158 (QB) is an example of a rare case where a defendant, in a personal injury case, obtained a declaration on a counterclaim. It…
PROVING THINGS 86: CLAIMANTS PROVE THE FACTS BUT FAIL TO PROVE CAUSATION: A SALUTARY TALE
The decision of His Honour Judge Simpkiss in O’Neill -v- Bull & Bull* (Canterbury County Court 5th February 2018) is an almost classical example of the need to prove things. It also provides a warning to non-contentious lawyers on the…
WITNESS EVIDENCE AND DOCUMENTS: GESTMIN CONSIDERED IN THE SUPREME COURT
In Bancoult, R (on the application of) (No 3) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Respondent)[2018] UKSC 3 the Supreme Court considered the “Gestmin” principles. There are several aspectse of the judgment. Here we look at the judgment…
WITNESS EVIDENCE: CREATING AN ACCURATE RECORD OF INAPPROPRIATE CONDUCT AT WORK: SPOT – AN IMPORTANT DEVELOPMENT
I have written before about the book The Memory Illusion. In essence lawyers need to be concerned about how easy it is for false memories to be created and how fallible the human memory is. The creation of an inaccurate…
CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE AND WITNESS EVIDENCE: INFORMED CONSENT NOT GIVEN: HIGH COURT JUDGMENT TODAY
There are many posts on this blog about how, ultimately, many clinical negligence cases turn on the issue of what was said. Liability often depends on which account of a conversation the trial judge prefers. This can be seen in stark…
PROVING THINGS: IF YOU LIKE THE BLOGS – THEN WATCH THE MOVIE…
The Webinar I did last week called “Proving things: if you don’t prove it, then you don’t get it” is now available for purchase online. TOPICS COVERED Topics covered include: “If you don’t prove it you don’t get it” Witness…
FACT FINDING IN THE FAMILY COURT: ERRATIC WITNESSES AND BEHAVIOUR ON DISCLOSURE WHERE THE CONDUCT WAS NOT FAR SHORT OF CONTEMPT
We have looked at “fact finding” by the courts many times. The fact finder in a family case has a particularly arduous and unenviable task . The judge has to assess evidence that is often highly charged, and where there…
THE PERILOUS STRATEGY OF SERVING EVIDENCE LATE: DENTON APPLIES: A RELEVANT FACTOR IN A SUMMARY JUDGMENT APPLICATION
The case of Crown House Technologies Ltd v Cardiff Commissioning Ltd & Anor [2018] EWHC 54 (TCC) highlights the dangers of waiting to serve evidence until the last moment. If it is served late then a party requires permission of the…
WITNESS STATEMENTS THAT DON’T COMPLY WITH THE RULES: 10 REASONS WHY THE GIVING THE SOURCE OF INFORMATION IS IMPORTANT: LITIGATION REQUIRES EVIDENCE NOT GOSSIP
There is a brief report on Lawtel that highlights the need for compliance with the rules relating to witness statements. The issue of failing to give sources of information and belief has been dealt with several times on this blog….
PROVING THINGS 85: AN INABILITY TO PROVE EVEN A SMALL SUM MEANS IT WILL NOT BE AWARDED
Many of the issues that have been looked at in the Proving Things series have been in relation to failures to prove substantial issues, or substantial sums. However the need to prove things is a universal requirement. I want to look…
PROVING THINGS 84: THE NEED TO PROVE A LOSS IS A PRESSING ONE: THAT OLD FASHIONED NEED TO PROVE DAMAGES: BUSINESS INTERRUPTION CLAIM REJECTED
In Contact (Print And Packaging) Ltd v Travelers Insurance Co Ltd [2018] EWHC 83 (TCC) His Honour Judge Stephen Davies (sitting as a High Court Judge) considered (and rejected) a claimant’s claim for damages for interruption to its business. It is…
THE ADVANTAGES OF GETTING WITNESS EVIDENCE EARLY – AND GETTING IT RIGHT: REDUCING THE RISKS OF LITIGATION
It is worthwhile repeating, and thinking about one part of the judgment of Master Leonard Douglas v Ministry of Justice & Anor [2018] EWHC B2 (Costs). “… the cost of preparing witness evidence will normally be recoverable as part of the cost…
WHEN THE PLEADINGS APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN PUT IN THE PAPER BIN AT TRIAL (SHADES OF THE OFFICE)
The judgment in Premier Paper Group Ltd v Buchanan McPherson Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 15 contains some interesting observations about the way in which the parties departed from their pleadings. Although the claim succeeded this case how important it is that…
PROVING THINGS 83: WHEN A DEFENDANT DOES NOT GIVE EVIDENCE, ADVERSE INFERENCES CAN BE DRAWN: STAGED CRASH ESTABLISHED
In UK Insurance Ltd v Gentry [2018] EWHC 37 (QB) Mr Justice Teare considered what inferences can properly be drawn when a defendant, accused of dishonesty, does not give evidence. KEY POINTS The claimant brought a case in deceit – alleging…
SEEKING AN EXTENSION OF TIME – WHEN YOU ARE 9 1/2 YEARS LATE: THE IMPORTANCE OF A SOLICITOR KEEPING A RECORD
Section 4 of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 provides that a claim under the Act should normally be brought within six months of the date on which representation is taken out. An action brought at a…
HAS THE WITNESS FOR THE OTHER SIDE WRITTEN A BOOK? THAT IS AN INTERESTING QUESTION: RESEARCHING AN EXPERT BEFORE THEY GIVE EVIDENCE
I have lost track of the number of interlocutory judgments there have been in the case of Kimathi & Ors v Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The latest judgment being at [2017] EWHC 3054 (QB). This judgment deals with the issue…
THE CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES: WHEN THE DEFENDANT’S OWN EVIDENCE AMOUNTS TO A HOME GOAL
This blog has looked many times at the issue of witness credibility and why the judge prefers the evidence of one witness over another . This was an issue to the fore in the judgment of Mr Justice Green in Khakshouri…
“SOMETIMES AN UNIMPRESSIVE WITNESS SPEAKS THE TRUTH”: FACT FINDING AND THE CIVIL COURTS: PRIVY COUNCIL OVERTURN FINDINGS OF FACT
In Cleare v The Attorney General & Ors (Bahamas) [2017] UKPC 38 the Privy Council was scathing of the method of fact finding of the trial judge. The judge erred in failing to consider the significance of medical evidence. ” It…
2018: A NEW YEAR RESOLUTION FOR LITIGATORS: DON’T LEAVE MATTERS TO CHANCE – LEARN TO PROVE DAMAGES
For nearly two years this blog has documented issues (and often failures) when parties fail to prove things. In a surprising number of cases the failures are very basic. Proving things is the basic job of the litigator. However we…
CIVIL LITIGATION AND THE MARTIAL ARTS: MCGANN -V- BISPING: ROUND 3: LATE WITNESS STATEMENTS AND “IMPLICIT” ORDERS FOR RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS
We have already looked twice at the “sparring” arguments in relation to procedure in the case of McGann v Bisping [2017] EWHC 2951 (Comm). A further procedural issue arose as to whether a party was debarred from calling evidence at all. The…
CIVIL LITIGATION AND THE MARTIAL ARTS: MCGANN -V- BISPING: ROUND 2: WHEN A WITNESS DISCUSSES THEIR EVIDENCE
The judgment in McGann v Bisping [2017] EWHC 2951 (Comm) deals with numerous procedural issues, many of which arose in the course of the trial. We have looked at one of these already. The case also involved a witness, during the course…
COUNTY COURT HAS POWER TO SET ASIDE A JUDGMENT AFTER TRIAL – IF IT WAS OBTAINED BY FRAUD
The decision in Salekipour & Anor v Parmar [2017] EWCA Civ 2141 was made after three previous hearings a (including two appeal hearings) in the lower courts. It was the only time the claimants were successful. It involved an important procedural…
MAKE UP A FRAUDULENT CASE, TELL LIES TO THE COURT – GO TO JAIL: THE FORGED WILL CASE HAS A SEQUEL
An earlier post looked at Patel -v- Patel [2017] EWHC 133 (Ch) in which the judge disbelieved all the witnesses who gave evidence that a will had been made in 2005. The trial judge observed. “My remaining concern with Nirja’s evidence is…
WITNESSES WHO ARGUE THE CASE AND EXPERTS WHO ACT AS ADVOCATES: THIS IS NOT GOING TO HELP …
In British Telecommunications Plc v Office Of Communications [2017] CAT 25 the Competition Appeal Tribunal commented on two of the central evidential issues of much commercial litigation: witnesses who give much commentary and “argue” the case; experts who act as advocates. …
PROVING THINGS 79: SOME THINGS JUST CAN’T BE A COINCIDENCE: A CAR CRASH OF A CASE
We have already looked today at the judgment in Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Ltd v Yavuz & Ors[2017] EWHC 3088 (QB). However that judgment also contains a close and careful analysis of witness evidence. “I start by asking myself this question:…
SIGNING THE STATEMENT OF TRUTH IN PRE-ACTION DOCUMENTS: WILL THE SOLICITOR GO TO JAIL OR NOT?
There has already been some discussion in the Gazette about the judgment in Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Ltd v Yavuz & Ors [2017] EWHC 3088 (QB). In particular the observations in relation to signature of documents by the legal representative. This…
PROVING THINGS 78: AN ABSENT WITNESS IS NEVER GOING TO HELP: DEFENDANT’S FAILURE TO TAKE CONTEMPORARY STATEMENTS LEADS TO ADVERSE INFERENCES
In a talk today to a group of clinical negligence lawyers I discussed the issue of evidence, and “missing” documents and witnesses. In particular the relevance of Keefe v Isle of Man Steam Packet Co Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 683 on the…
You must be logged in to post a comment.