MEMBER NEWS: A REMINDER OF MEMBER BENEFITS AND WHERE TO FIND THE DISCOUNT CODES: ESSENTIAL TOPICS COVERED IN WEBINARS THROUGHOUT THE YEAR
A reminder that member subscribers have access to discounts on webinars being presented throughout the year. The details of the webinars, the discounts and how to find the discount codes are below. The first webinar sets out the practical consequences…
WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: THE USE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN THE DRAFTING OF WITNESS STATEMENTS: “IT IS DIFFICULT TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN WHAT F SAYS AND WHAT AN ALGORITHM TELLS F TO SAY”
There is much material about witness evidence and witness statements on this site. In recent years we have also been discussing the use (and misuse) of artificial intelligence. We can be fairly sure that there will be much more about…
DEFENDANTS GIVEN PERMISSION TO RELY ON SURVEILLANCE EVIDENCE SERVED LATE: EVEN THOUGH THIS LED TO THE ADJOURNMENT OF THE TRIAL
A defendant that wishes to rely on surveillance evidence must choose its timing with extreme care. If the evidence is disclosed too early then the claimant could be “tipped off”; too late and this could be categorised as an “ambush”. …
RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS DENIED AFTER A PATTERN OF DEFAULT DELAY AND EXCUSES: TO BREACH ONE UNLESS ORDER MAY BE REGARDED AS MISFORTUNE, TO BREACH TWO LOOKS LIKE …
Staying with the theme this week of the making and breaching of peremptory orders alongside applications for relief from sanctions, we are considering what, on any view, as an “ambitious” application for relief from sanctions. The defendant here had breached…
WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY i : COURT WOULD NOT DRAW ADVERSE INFERENCES FROM WITNESSES WHO WERE NOT CALLED TO GIVE EVIDENCE “THE PERMISSIBLE FUNCTIONS OF CROSS-EXAMINATION DO NOT INCLUDE ENABLING THESE DEFENDANTS TO FISH FOR MATERIAL IN SUPPORT OF A CASE THAT IS (i) UNPLEADED (ii) IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE CASE THAT IS PLEADED”
As you may guess from the title we are looking at witness evidence more than once today. Firstly we are going to look at an argument from the defendants that a claimant’s failure to call witnesses to give evidence meant…
THE STATEMENT OF TRUTH WAS NOT SIGNED BY AN AUTHORISED PERSON: IT REQUIRES “FACTS” NOT INFORMATION: A SOLICITOR EMPLOYEE SHOULD NOT HAVE SIGNED IN THE NAME OF THE FIRM
Here we have an example of a Statement of Truth that was non-compliant it contained the wrong wording and was signed by the wrong person in the wrong way. It shows the need to ensure that the rules in relation…
WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: HOW DOES THE COURT APPROACH EVIDENCE OF SOMETHING THAT HAPPENED OVER FOUR YEARS BEFORE AND TOOK PLACE WITHIN TWO MINUTES?
This series enables us to look at witness evidence in many different contexts. Here we look at evidence relating to an arrest and events that took place within two minutes. The judge was well aware of the issues that could…
PROVING THINGS 276: APPEAL JUDGE OVERTURNS TRIAL JUDGE’S “INFERENCES” OF LOSS: DAMAGES AWARD OF £347,285 REPLACED WITH £NIL
This is a classic “Proving Things” case, the only surprise being that it reached the appeal stage. On appeal the the judge overturned the trial judge’s findings in favour of the defendant’s counterclaim and reduced a damages award of £347,285…
AVOIDING THE PITFALLS: PROCEDURAL DEFAULT, SANCTIONS AND OTHER ISSUES THAT CAUSE ACTIONS TO FAIL: WEBINAR 6th FEBRUARY 2026: REMEMBER WE LOOK AT THESE PROBLEMS TO TRY TO MAKE SURE YOU DON’T HAVE THEM
The next webinar in the “Avoiding the Pitfalls” series is a 90 minute long webinar on the 6th February 2026. The webinar examines the most common procedural problems and practical difficulties that arise in civil litigation. It explores where and…
SHOULD A LOSING PARTY FACE THE NORMAL CONSEQUENCES OF FAILING TO BEAT A PART 36 OFFER? A REMINDER THAT THIS IS A HIGH HURDLE WITH A “FORMIDABLE BURDEN”
A litigant who fails to beat a Part 36 offer can normally expect to face the consequences set out in the rules. There is an exception if that litigant can satisfy the court that it is “unjust” for those consequences…
WHEN A WITNESS STATEMENT IS REALLY LEGAL ARGUMENT: THIS IS NOT APPROPRIATE (NOR IS IT A NEW PROBLEM…)
I know that Wednesday is the day when we usually focus on witness evidence. However here we look at a case where it was conceded that a statement was, in reality, “more akin to a skeleton argument”. This is wrong….
THROWBACK FRIDAY: WITNESS STATEMENTS THAT DON’T COMPLY WITH THE RULES: 10 REASONS WHY GIVING THE SOURCE OF INFORMATION IS IMPORTANT (FROM JANUARY 2018)
Today we go back to a post from January 2018 on a point that remains just as relevant today. There is a mandatory requirement that a witness give the source of their information and belief. A surprising number of witness…
WHEN DOCUMENTS WERE CHANGED AFTER THE EVENT: “THEY ARE FALSE AND WERE INTENDED TO DEFLECT BLAME”: SOME POINTS FOR LITIGATORS TO REMEMBER IF THEY WANT TO KEEP THEIR CASES ON AN EVEN KEEL…
Many the cases which consider and give guidance on witness credibility stress the importance of contemporary documents. However what happens when the “contemporary” documents have been re-written after the event? Litigations should be alive to that possibility. Here we look…
WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: A ROBUST OVERTURNING OF THE APPROACH TO THE WITNESS EVIDENCE AT FIRST INSTANCE: “GENERALISED FINDINGS ON CREDIBILITY ARE NOT A USEFUL TOOL FOR RESOLVING SPECIFIC ISSUES OF FACT”
It is unusual to see an appellate court make robust criticisms of the fact finding process at first instance. We have such a judgment here by the Employment Appeal Tribunal. The EAT made it clear that generalised findings as to…
WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: WHEN WITNESS STATEMENTS SHOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR THIRD PARTIES AT COURT: NO NOTICE NECESSARY…
Is a third party, with no relationship to the case, entitled to see the witness statements being used in the hearing? That is the issue considered in this case which, unusually, was an application for judicial review of a County…
THROWBACK FRIDAY: APPLICATIONS FOR RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: 10 POINTS TO IMPROVE THE ODDS: LOOKING BACK TO JANUARY 2016
This blog celebrates its 13th birthday later this year. Civil Litigation Brief started as a series in the Solicitors Journal 35 years ago. Needless to say it has a large “back catalogue”. I wanted a regular opportunity to bring important…
THE RELEVANCE OF THE ABSENCE OF ORAL EVIDENCE AT INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS: A JUDGE MUST MAKE A DECISION ON THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THEM
In this case the claimant appealed against the findings of fact that the court made at first instance. However those findings were made on the basis of written evidence that was before the court. The claimant had not applied for…
WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: FINDINGS OF DISHONESTY WERE WRONG AND COULD NOT STAND: ISSUES OF WITNESS CREDIBILITY ARE NOT SIMPLY A MATTER OF “INTUITION”
Here we look at a case where, unusually, the judge overturned first instance findings of dishonesty. The circumstances in which those findings were made were seriously flawed. Important procedural safeguards had not been in place, not least the allegations…
COURT OF APPEAL REFUSES PERMISSION FOR APPELLANT TO AMEND PLEADINGS OR RELY ON NEW EVIDENCE: GET YOUR CASE TOGETHER BEFORE AN APPLICATION NOT AFTER IT…
In this judgment today the Court of Appeal refused an application by an appellant to rely on amended Particulars of Claim or adduce new evidence in a case where the claim was struck out. The Court made the point that…
NEW SERIES FOR 2026: CIVIL PROCEDURE “BACK TO BASICS MONDAY”: STARTING ON …. MONDAY…
We look at many cases on this blog where litigants (often more accurately – litigators) experience major procedural difficulties. It is surprising how often these difficulties arise from a very basic failure. That is a failure to follow a rule,…
WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: SPECIAL TWIXMAS EDITION: RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS WHEN STATEMENTS SERVED LATE: CLAIMANT ALLOWED TO RELY ON PARTICULARS OF CLAIM AS EVIDENCE
The last Witness Evidence Wednesday of the year deals with an unusual case relating to relief from sanctions following a failure to serve witness evidence timeously. The judge at first instance had refused the claimant’s application for relief from sanctions. …
WHEN THE WITNESS STATEMENT OF THE DEFENDANT CONTAINS PASSAGES THAT ARE CUT AND PASTED FROM AN EXPERT’S REPORT: SOMEONE MAY NOTICE THIS…
It is clear that many judge’s approach witness statements with a degree of scepticism, regarding them more as a lawyer’s construct than the actual recollection of the witness. In this case the defendant’s own witness statement included passages that were…
WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: JUDGE CONSIDERS ADMISSIBILITY OF WITNESS EVIDENCE ON THE FIRST DAY OF TRIAL: “ARE YOU EXPERIENCED”?
It is unusual for a judge to consider the admissibility of witness evidence on the first day of a trial. However, in some ways, this is an unusual case. The judge found that the statement was relevant to the pleaded…
COURT REFUSES CLAIMANTS’ APPLICATION THAT WITNESS BE ANONYMOUS
In this case the judge considered in detail the principles relating to a witness in a civil trial being granted anonymity. The evidence in support of the application was found to be somewhat speculative. There is, it was held, a…
WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: DEFENDANT REFUSED PERMISSION TO RELY ON EVIDENCE SERVED (VERY LATE): “THE TIME IS NOW”
We have seen examples of witness evidence served late, sometimes very late. Here we see an example of witness evidence served five minutes before a hearing was due to start, and two months late. Further that evidence attempted to disavow…
REVIEW OF THE YEAR 1: WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY (ON A SUNDAY): STATEMENTS IN 2025: SHAKESPEARE, MONKEY, HALLUCINATIONS AND WITNESSES ANXIOUS TO GIVE THE JUDGE THEIR “OPINION”
The white book regularly contains a warning about drafting witness statements “Periodically, the Court of Appeal and individual trial judges have criticised lawyers for overloading witness statements with material that should not be included.” This year has seen a…
THE HILLSBOROUGH REPORT AND THE AMENDMENT OF WITNESS STATEMENTS: NEW INFORMATION IN THE IPOC REPORT PUBLISHED YESTERDAY
This blog has looked at the issues relating to evidence gathering and the Hillsborough tragedy several times, in particular the way that witness statements were gathered, and the reports amended. The issues were considered again in the Independent Office for…
WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY : DO THE PROVISIONS OF PD57AC APPLY WHERE THE COURT IS TAKING AN ACCOUNT?
Here we are looking at an unusual issue. The court was taking an account following directions of the High Court. One of the witness statements did not comply with PD57AC. The judge had to consider the issue as to whether…
CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CORNER 5: ANOTHER CASE OF “WHAT WAS SAID?” AND “WHY WASN’T THAT PARTICULAR POINT IN THE MEDICAL NOTES?”
Here we have a clinical negligence case with a familiar issue. The trial depended on whose account the judge accepted of what was said in a particular medical consultation several years earlier. The treating doctor can, in reality, remember little…
PROVING THINGS 274: A WITNESS STATEMENT SHOULD NOT BE RESPONSIVE TO AND COMMENT UPON THE OTHER SIDE’S STATEMENTS: FAILURE TO COMPLY HAS CONSEQUENCES
It is surprisingly common to see witness statements that “comment” on aspects of the case rather than give evidence. This clearly breaches the rules relating to witness statements. Further it can lead to adverse consequences for those who make such…
WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: A JUDGE ASKING A WITNESS TO CLARIFY THEIR EVIDENCE IS NOT “BIASED” : “JUDGES ARE NOT PASSIVE SPECTATORS AT A TRIAL”
This week we are looking at an appeal that considers the trial judge’s consideration of witnesses at trial. The appellant alleged that the judge was biased and the trial therefore unfair. There is a detailed consideration of the “bias” alleged…
AND THEY KEEP ON COMING… ANOTHER FALSE CITATIONS CASE: “I RELIED ON THE AI OVERVIEW” FROM GOOGLE
The cases continue to come. Some lawyers are continuing to rely upon artificial intelligence to produce false authorities. Here was a firm of solicitors (defending themselves) who relied on the AI contents of a Google search. Such searches are never…
EXPERT WATCH 25: EXPERT IN ELECTION CASE FAILS TO GET THE JUDGES’ VOTE: THE EXPERT SHOULD BE SENT (AND CONSIDER) CONTRADICTING EVIDENCE
There are not many cases where issues relating to expert evidence are considered in an Election Court. We have such a case here. The Court allowed expert evidence to be admitted. However it was unable to give any weight to…
WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: WHAT SHOULD A JUDGE DO WHEN THE FACTS ARE DISPUTED BUT WITNESSES ARE NOT CALLED TO GIVE EVIDENCE?
What is a judge to do if there is a dispute as to the facts but neither party calls evidence and there is no cross-examination? That is the question considered here. (How can a judge determine which witness is correct…
FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY AND CONTEMPT OF COURT: CLAIMANT BROUGHT A FRAUDULENT £3 MILLION CLAIM: SENTENCE OF IMPRISONMENT IMPOSED
This blog has looked at cases of fundamental dishonesty many times. It has to be remembered that, more often than not, bringing dishonest claims is also contempt of court. This case deals with the appropriate sentence that should be passed…
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE IN ROAD TRAFFIC CASES: DO ALL ROADS LEAD TO FROOM? WEBINAR 19th NOVEMBER 2025
Issues relating to contributory negligence often play a large part in road traffic cases. This webinar looks at the case law and guidance in relation to the key issues that often arise. Booking details are available here. (A failure to wear…
THE DEFENDANTS’ SOLICITOR HAS BEEN “SET UP”, SECRETLY RECORDED AND TOLD US THINGS HE SHOULD NOT: NOW WE WANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED ON THOSE RECORDINGS: QUITE A CASE THIS…
Here we have an extraordinary case. The claimants’ employed a private enquiry agent to meet, on a pretence, with the defendants’ solicitor. That meeting was used by the enquiry agent to obtain information about the defendants’ case. It was videoed…
CONTEMPT OF COURT (1) CONTEMPT NEED NOT BE “CONTUMELIOUS” (WHATEVER THAT MEANS): WHY CHIEF CONSTABLES, CHIEF EXECUTIVES, MINISTERS OF STATE AND BOSSES EVERYWHERE NEED TO PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO LITIGATION
I am breaking down this important Court of Appeal decision into a number of parts. We have already looked at the judgment as to the numerous “misleading” witness statements that were filed. The Court of Appeal also makes important observations…
WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: “MISLEADING AND UNTRUE STATEMENTS… HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE COURT ON BEHALF OF THE CHIEF CONSTABLE” (COURT OF APPEAL ARE NOT HAPPY…)
This week we are looking at a remarkable case. Shortly before a matter was due to be heard in the Court of Appeal the respondent (the Chief Constable of a police force) filed documents which showed that numerous witness statements…
PROVING THINGS 273: COURT OF APPEAL OVERTURNS FINDINGS OF FACT: IT “BEGGARS BELIEF” THAT THE DEFENDANT DID NOT KNOW OF THE RELEVANT MATTERS
Here we look at a case where the Court of Appeal overturned the trial judge’s findings of fact at trial. Usually this is difficult, or the court acts with some reticence, here the Court uses the phrase “it beggars belief”…
WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: DISTILLING THE GESTMIN GUIDELINES: WHICH WITNESS WILL BE BELIEVED? (AND WHAT PART OF THEIR EVIDENCE ACCEPTED?)
Over the past month or so there have been at least half a dozen cases where the judge references Gestmin – the consideration and guidance given to judicial fact finding, particularly in relation to witness evidence. These range from actions…
COST BITES 304: “NEGLIGENCE” HAS A PARTICULAR MEANING IN A WASTED COSTS APPLICATION: THERE MUST BE “SOMETHING AKIN TO AN ABUSE OF PROCESS”.
The judgment here considers what is meant by “negligent” when wasted costs are sought against a legal representative. The review of the authorities makes it clear that it has a specific meaning. (There is a Lord Denning judgment where he…
WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: HOW JUDGES DECIDE CIVIL CASES: “JUDGES ARE HUMAN. THEY DO NOT POSSESS SUPERNATURAL POWERS”
This week we are looking at a judgment that sets out in detail the process by which judges determine issues in a civil case. Ranging from the burden and standard of proof , the role of judges, the fallibility of…
EXPERT WATCH 22: JUST WHEN YOU THINK YOU MAY HAVE SEEN IT ALL: THE CLIENT (BASICALLY) DRAFTS THE JOINT STATEMENT: THE JUDGE THINKS THEY MAY HAVE PLAYED A LARGE PART IN THE DRAFTING OF THE REPORT ITSELF…
No matter how long, and how much, you write about civil procedure cases can still come along which surprise – if not astonish. We have such a case here. The judge found that, essentially, it was the client who played…
THE RESPONDENTS’ ARGUMENTS ABOUT FAILURES OF PROCEDURE WERE NOT “NIT PICKING”: RATHER THEY SHOWED THAT THE APPLICATION HAD NOT BEEN PROPERLY BROUGHT AND COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED…
There are often major differences of view as to the effect of non-compliance with the rules. We have such differences here. The claimants, in default, regarded the respondents’ procedural objections as “nit-picking”. The judge, however, held that the default was…
OCCUPIER’S LIABILITY CASES IN THE COURTS: A PRACTICAL APPROACH: WEBINAR 29th OCTOBER 2025
This webinar looks at how the courts are dealing with occupiers liability cases and the duty of care. It takes a practical look at they way in which cases are decided and the factors which determine whether liability is established…
SHOULD THE COURT GIVE ADEFENDANT PERMISSION TO RELY ON WITNESS STATEMENT THAT WAS SENT “EARLY” BUT NOT SERVED AS A TRIAL WITNESS STATEMENT?
We are looking at an application to rely on a witness statement that was served “late”. The statement had, in fact, been served on the claimants ahead of the deadline but not served as a witness statement for trial. When…
WHEN A SOLICITOR SIGNS THE STATEMENT OF TRUTH FOR A COMPANY: THE COURT CAN ORDER THAT THE COMPANY DELIVERS UP DETAILS OF WHICH INDIVIDUAL GAVE INFORMATION
It is not uncommon for the solicitor to sign a statement of truth on behalf of a company or corporation. This case considers the question of whether the company can be compelled to give details of the individuals who gave…
WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: THE DUTY TO PUT YOUR CASE TO A WITNESS: THE PRINCIPLES SUMMARISED IN THE HIGH COURT
Earlier this week we looked at a case where difficulties occurred because the claimant’s case was not put to a witness for the defendant. Here I want to highlight the key parts of that judgment relating to the need…
THE REQUIREMENT TO PUT YOUR CASE TO YOUR OPPONENT’S WITNESS (AND THE POTENTIAL DIRE CONSEQUENCES IF THIS IS NOT DONE): SOME UNUSUAL PROCEDURAL TANGLES IN THE THE HIGH COURT
We are looking at a case where, for reasons that are unclear, the claimants failed to challenge a key part of the evidence of the defendant’s witness. That evidence was central to the claimants’ case. The claimants’ attempts to rectify…
You must be logged in to post a comment.