A CLEAR WARNING FOR THOSE WHO SIGN WITNESS STATEMENTS AND SOLICITORS WHO SIGN STATEMENTS OF COMPLIANCE: IT IS NOT A JUNGLE OUT THERE

A CLEAR WARNING FOR THOSE WHO SIGN WITNESS STATEMENTS AND SOLICITORS WHO SIGN STATEMENTS OF COMPLIANCE: IT IS NOT A JUNGLE OUT THERE

In Cumbria Zoo Company Ltd v The Zoo Investment Company Ltd [2022] EWHC 3379 (Ch) HHJ Pearce sent out an important message to those who sign witness statements. He also sent out an, arguably more important message, to those solicitors…

IF YOU DON'T COMPLY WITH THE RULES RELATING TO WITNESS STATEMENTS YOUR CASE CAN (AND THIS CASE DID) GO DOWN THE DRAIN

IF YOU DON’T COMPLY WITH THE RULES RELATING TO WITNESS STATEMENTS YOUR CASE CAN (AND THIS CASE DID) GO DOWN THE DRAIN

In Brendon International Ltd v Water Plus Ltd & Anor [2022] EWHC 3321 (Ch)HHJ Cadwallader (sitting as a High Court Judge) found that numerous elements of the defendant’s witness statements were defective and non-compliant with the rules.  The case is…

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS REFUSED: TRIAL BUNDLES, LATE WITNESS STATEMENTS AND LATE DISCLOSURE: CASES NEED TO BE PREPARED PROPERLY

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS REFUSED: TRIAL BUNDLES, LATE WITNESS STATEMENTS AND LATE DISCLOSURE: CASES NEED TO BE PREPARED PROPERLY

I am grateful to my colleague Eleanor Temple for sending me a copy of the decision of HHJ-Davis-White KC in the case of Ball -v- Ball (11th October 2022), a copy of the judgment is available here Ball v Ball…

THE COURT CANNOT COMPEL A PARTY TO CALL A WITNESS: "PARTY AUTONOMY IS PARAMOUNT"

THE COURT CANNOT COMPEL A PARTY TO CALL A WITNESS: “PARTY AUTONOMY IS PARAMOUNT”

In QX v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2022] EWCA Civ 1541 (22 November 2022) the Court of Appeal held that the courts have no power to compel a party to call a witness. “The starting proposition must…

EVIDENCE OF STATISTICS FROM DEFENDANTS' SOLICITORS RELATING TO CLAIMS NOT EXCLUDED: HIGH COURT DECISION

EVIDENCE OF STATISTICS FROM DEFENDANTS’ SOLICITORS RELATING TO CLAIMS NOT EXCLUDED: HIGH COURT DECISION

The judgment of Mr Justice Freedman in Kerseviciene v Quadri & Anor [2022] EWHC 2951 (KB) is of considerable interest to anyone involved in litigation, particular personal injury litigation.  The judge upheld a finding that a witness statement from the…

PROVING THINGS 242: A SOLICITOR'S SHORTHAND NOTE OF WHAT HAPPENED IN THE MAGISTRATES' COURT IS NOT GOING TO CARRY ANY WEIGHT AT ALL

PROVING THINGS 242: A SOLICITOR’S SHORTHAND NOTE OF WHAT HAPPENED IN THE MAGISTRATES’ COURT IS NOT GOING TO CARRY ANY WEIGHT AT ALL

The judgment of Mr Justice Garnham in Correia v Williams [2022] EWHC 2824 (KB),  was looked at yesterday on this blog. The judgment also contains an interesting approach to civil evidence at trial. The claimant’s solicitor prepared a witness statement annexing her…

APPEAL COURT UPHOLDS TRIAL JUDGE'S DECISION TO REFUSE TO ADMIT WITNESS STATEMENT OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE SPEAKER THAT HAD NOT BEEN DRAFTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES

APPEAL COURT UPHOLDS TRIAL JUDGE’S DECISION TO REFUSE TO ADMIT WITNESS STATEMENT OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE SPEAKER THAT HAD NOT BEEN DRAFTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RULES

I am grateful to barrister Jake Rowley for drawing my attention to the judgment of Mr Justice Garnham in Correia v Williams [2022] EWHC 2824 (KB). Mr Justice Garnham refused an appeal when a judge had held that a witness…

COURT UPHOLDS TRIAL JUDGE'S DECISION NOT TO ALLOW A WITNESS TO GIVE "SUPPLEMENTARY EVIDENCE": THE WITNESS STATEMENT IS USUALLY THE START AND FINISH OF EVIDENCE IN CHIEF

COURT UPHOLDS TRIAL JUDGE’S DECISION NOT TO ALLOW A WITNESS TO GIVE “SUPPLEMENTARY EVIDENCE”: THE WITNESS STATEMENT IS USUALLY THE START AND FINISH OF EVIDENCE IN CHIEF

The judgment of Mrs Justice Heather Williams in Lydford v Skinner [2021] EWHC 3783 (QB) could well appear in the “Proving Things” series. A claimant’s action for damages for personal injury failed because he failed to establish that an occupier was…

WITNESS CREDIBILITY AND A FINDING OF FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY: "BUT WHAT OF THE MENDACIOUS WITNESS?"

WITNESS CREDIBILITY AND A FINDING OF FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY: “BUT WHAT OF THE MENDACIOUS WITNESS?”

In Muyepa v Ministry of Defence [2022] EWHC 2648 (KB) Mr Justice Cotter set out detailed considerations for assessing witness credibility.  Here we look at the description of the process of analysing the credibility of the witnesses.   “But what…

TWO ISSUES: WITNESS CREDIBILITY: ATTEMPTING TO RE-OPEN A JUDGMENT ON THE BASIS OF OMISSIONS IN THE JUDGMENT: ADVOCATES NEED TO CONSIDER THE POSITION CAREFULLY

TWO ISSUES: WITNESS CREDIBILITY: ATTEMPTING TO RE-OPEN A JUDGMENT ON THE BASIS OF OMISSIONS IN THE JUDGMENT: ADVOCATES NEED TO CONSIDER THE POSITION CAREFULLY

There are two aspects of the judgment of Mr Justice Mostyn in  Cazalet v Abu-zalaf [2022] EWFC 119 that are of general interest to litigators. Firstly the judge’s observations as to witness credibility. Secondly the observations in relation to re-opening…

OUR OLD FRIEND THE ABSENT WITNESSES: WHAT INFERENCES CAN AND SHOULD THE COURT DRAW?  THREE DIFFERENT APPROACHES

OUR OLD FRIEND THE ABSENT WITNESSES: WHAT INFERENCES CAN AND SHOULD THE COURT DRAW? THREE DIFFERENT APPROACHES

We are returning to a decision looked and before, and a familiar issue to this blog, in  looking again at the judgment HHJ Stephen Davies (sitting as a High Court judge) in Thomas Barnes & Sons Plc v Blackburn with Darwen…

ONCE AGAIN: COMMENTARY AND COMMENT IN A WITNESS STATEMENT: IT NEVER HELPS (THE CLIENT) AND IS ALMOST ALWAYS HARMFUL

ONCE AGAIN: COMMENTARY AND COMMENT IN A WITNESS STATEMENT: IT NEVER HELPS (THE CLIENT) AND IS ALMOST ALWAYS HARMFUL

We see a familiar story in the judgment of HHJ Stephen Davies (sitting as a High Court judge) in Thomas Barnes & Sons Plc v Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council [2022] EWHC 2598 (TCC).  The witness statements of the claimant…

COST BITES 17: FAILURE TO ENGAGE WITH CRITICISM OF WITNESS STATEMENT LEADS TO INDEMNITY COSTS: FAILING TO ENGAGE ON WITNESS STATEMENT ISSUES CAN BE EXPENSIVE

COST BITES 17: FAILURE TO ENGAGE WITH CRITICISM OF WITNESS STATEMENT LEADS TO INDEMNITY COSTS: FAILING TO ENGAGE ON WITNESS STATEMENT ISSUES CAN BE EXPENSIVE

There is another judgment in the case of  McKinney Plant & Safety Ltd v Construction Industry Training Board [2022] EWHC 2361 (Ch) Richard Farnhill (sitting as a Deputy Judge of the Chancery Division) that is worth noting.  The claimant’s failure…

FAILING TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS FOR WITNESS STATEMENTS: A PARTY WAS NOT "NIT PICKING"

FAILING TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS FOR WITNESS STATEMENTS: A PARTY WAS NOT “NIT PICKING”

In  McKinney Plant & Safety Ltd v Construction Industry Training Board [2022] EWHC 2361 (Ch) Richard Farnhill (sitting as a Deputy Judge of the Chancery Division) considered the appropriate response where a party fails to comply with the requirements for…

NINE YEARS ON III: 2015: WITNESS STATEMENTS - WHO SAYS YOU'LL WIN NOTHING WITH KIDS

NINE YEARS ON III: 2015: WITNESS STATEMENTS – WHO SAYS YOU’LL WIN NOTHING WITH KIDS

My, highly personal, selection of posts from each year moves on to 2015.  Here we look at a blog post from February 2015 about the decision in Woodland and Maxwell. This is a case that was subject to much interlocutory…

NINE YEARS ON 2: "DRAFTING WITNESS STATEMENTS : THE QUESTIONS YOU ASK WILL DETERMINE THE ANSWERS YOU GET: EIGHT CRUCIAL POINTS ON EVIDENCE"

NINE YEARS ON 2: “DRAFTING WITNESS STATEMENTS : THE QUESTIONS YOU ASK WILL DETERMINE THE ANSWERS YOU GET: EIGHT CRUCIAL POINTS ON EVIDENCE”

I am “reprinting” a post from every year that this blog has been going.  Today we have reached 2014.  A post on drafting witness statements and the asking of leading questions.  This is an ongoing issue. The drastic measures introduced…