USING WHATSAPP AND OTHER MEANS OF COMMUNICATION WITH CLIENTS: THE RISKS CONSIDERED
The previous post looked in detail at the issues in a solicitor and own client assessment caused by the solicitor’s use of WhatsApp. That judgment gives rise to much wider issues in relation to how solicitors communicate with clients. In…
“HALLUCINATIONS” IS NOT A GOOD WORD FOR FALSE CASES GENERATED BY AI: THIS JEOPARDISES THE RULE OF LAW: LESSONS FROM THE COURTS OF OREGON
The issue of the citation of false cases generated by Artificial Intelligence is, it is clear, an international one. Here we have a decision from the Court of Appeals in the State of Oregon. Among other things it challenges the…
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…
EXPERT WATCH 28: I CAN’T GIVE PERMISSION FOR AN EXPERT BECAUSE THIS IS SIMPLY NOT EXPERT EVIDENCE: FORENSIC ACCOUNTANT’S REPORT DOESN’T GET THE CREDIT IT DESERVES…
The judge here held that the report prepared by a forensic accountant was not, in fact, an expert’s report. The report well be helpful, but its contents did not come within the meaning of “expert evidence”. Further insofar as the…
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…
CONSTRUING A COURT ORDER: WHAT DOES THE WORD “IMPECUNIOSITY” MEAN? “IT DEPENDS” – THE ISSUE CONSIDERED ON APPEAL IN THE HIGH COURT
In this case the court made a court order which meant that the claimant was debarred from relying on issues relating to “impecuniosity” at trial. The appeal was, in part, about what “impecuniosity” meant in that context. (It was reasonable…
WHEN CAN ADVERSE FINDINGS ABOUT A WITNESS IN A CASE BE APPEALED? THE COURT OF APPEAL CONSIDERS THE ISSUES
It is not unusual for trial judges to be critical of the conduct or evidence of a witness in a case. What should a witness do if the judgment is critical of them? Do they have a right of anonymity? …
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…
INDEMNITY COSTS ORDERED IN CASE WHERE CLAIMANTS OBTAINED INFORMATION FROM DEFENDANTS’ SOLICITOR IN A “STING” OPERATION: “THE CLAIMANTS SOUGHT TO JUSTIFY THE UNJUSTIFIABLE”
This is a case worth reading if you want to see strong judicial commentary on litigation conduct. The judge was clear in his view of the conduct that the claimants had engaged in and surprised by its lack of self…
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…
WHAT IS THE COURT TO DO WHEN A PARTY ALLEGES THAT A DOCUMENT IS A FORGERY BUT HAS NOT SERVED NOTICE UNDER CPR 32.19?
Here we look at very useful observations as to the approach of the court when at trial it becomes clear that a party is alleging a document is forged, or not authentic, but that party has not served a notice…
EXPERT WATCH 26: JUDGE’S DECISION NOT TO ADMIT EXPERT EVIDENCE UPHELD BY THE COURT OF APPEAL: “IT IS NOT CLEAR TO ME WHAT VALUE IT WOULD ADD TO THE CASE”
It is rare to see an appeal where a decision about whether to admit expert evidence is considered. In this case the Court of Appeal considered the judge’s decision not to admit a report. Both parties agreed that the report…
COMPLIANCE WITH COURT ORDERS, CONTINUING BREACHES AND CONTEMPT OF COURT: AN INDIVIDUAL RESPONDENT WOULD HAVE GONE TO JAIL
This is a judgment which anyone with responsibility for running a legal department, or in a position where “the buck stops here” should read. The Court of Appeal judgment is clear, and damning, in relation to the conduct involved, albeit…
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE AND ACCIDENTS AT WORK: WEBINAR 1ST DECEMBER 2025: CRITICISM USING HINDSIGHT IS EASY BUT DOES NOT NECESSARILY LEAD TO FINDINGS AGAINST A CLAIMANT
This webinar explores the complex area of contributory negligence in employer’s liability cases. It examines how courts approach allegations that an employee’s actions contributed to their own injury, drawing on key case law to illustrate judicial reasoning. Delegates will gain…
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…
COST BITES 309: ISSUES OF SECURITY FOR COSTS CONSIDERED IN A SOLICITOR AND OWN CLIENT ASSESSMENT : WITH IMPORTANT POINTERS HERE FOR ALL SECURITY FOR COSTS APPLICATIONS: “I AM NOT PREPARED TO DECIDE THIS APPLICATION ON THE BASIS OF INFERENCE AND CONJECTURE”)
We are looking at an application relating to security for costs in the context of a solicitor and own client assessment. However, as the heading indicates, there are more general lesson here for all litigators. In particular the need to…
THE SOLICITOR AND THE STING OPERATION (3): THE AGENCY THAT CARRIED OUT A STING OPERATION ON A (RETIRED) JUDGE, AMONG OTHERS…
If you think that the account of enquiry agents carrying out a sting operation on the other side’s solicitor is remarkable then sit down for a while. That judgment also reveals that (in wholly unrelated proceedings) the agency in question…
THE SOLICITOR AND THE STING OPERATION (2): WHY THE JUDGE DID NOT ACCEPT THAT THE CLAIMANTS WERE UNAWARE OF THE STRATEGY BEING USED
We are returning again to the case where the claimants arranged the taping of meetings with the defendants’ solicitors. The judge was sceptical of the claimants’ assertions that they were not fully aware of the methods being used. (This case…
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE: THE LAW, PRACTICE AND SPECIAL CASES: WEBINAR 17th NOVEMBER 2025
You may be reading this for the second time – but it may be partly your own fault.… This webinar looks at the law relating to contributory negligence, the legislation and the key cases. Booking details are available here. …
THE SOLICITOR AND THE “STING” OPERATION (1): THE METHODS USED TO EXTRACT INFORMATION FROM THE SOLICITOR: “HE WAS DECEIVED AND PLAYED FOR A FOOL…”
A party to an action hires an enquiry agent to deceive their opponent’s solicitor into giving them information. That scenario may seem far fetched but it is what actually happened in this this case. It is worthwhile looking closely at…
EXPERTS IN THE COURTS IN 2025: THE CASES (AND THE LESSONS) CONSIDERED IN A WEBINAR ON THE 20th NOVEMBER 2025
This has been quite a year for experts in the courts. All kinds of mistakes and errors have been reported upon. These are expensive issues for litigants and sometimes for the experts involved. This webinar looks at cases relating to…
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…
COURT CONSIDERS APPLICATION FOR FURTHER DISCLOSURE MADE ON THE THIRD DAY OF THE TRIAL: “THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE MANY MONTHS BEFORE…”
It is unusual for an application for further disclosure, particularly extensive disclosure, to be made part way through a trial. The judge considered such an application in this case. This led to the obvious question – why wasn’t this application…
“LITIGANTS IN PERSON SHOULD BE WARY OF UNQUALIFIED INDIVIDUALS WHO ENCOURAGE THEM TO DEFEND OR PURSUE CASES BY REFERENCE TO SPURIOUS LEGAL ARGUMENTS, WHICH HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SUBSTANCE OF THE CASE”
It is rare for this blog to look at judgments from other jurisdictions. However some words from the High Court of Ireland caught my eye. It offers advice, in particular, to litigants in person. (This is not a warning in…
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”…
DEFAULT AND SANCTIONS CASES IN THE COURTS IN 2025: WEBINAR 12th NOVEMBER 2025: LOOKING AT MISTAKES IN LITIGATION TO AVOID REPEATS NEXT YEAR…
It is that time of year when we can look back and reflect on events of the previous 12 months. Here we are looking at what lessons can be learnt from cases on default and sanctions since November 2024. As…
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…
MAZUR(ISH) MATTERS 28: IT WAS “SLIGHTLY SURPRISING” THAT A PARALEGAL “DID NOT KNOW MORE ABOUT THE REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT APPLICABLE TO NON-SOLICITORS”
Here we look at a judge’s comments outside the ambit of litigation. Nevertheless it shows that the issue of professional regulation and the use of “non-authorised” employees within solicitor’s firms may well become a more important issue in the future….
EXPERT WATCH 24: WHEN AN EXPERT IN A CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THE “BOLAM” TEST (WHICH IS REFERRED TO IN THEIR OWN REPORT)THIS IS NOT DETERMINATIVE: BUT IT DOESN’T HELP
This is not the first time we have looked at a case where an expert in a clinical negligence has revealed in cross-examination that they do no really understand the “Bolam” test for negligence. We look at such a case…
MAZUR MATTERS 26: SHOULD THE PROFESSION HAVE SEEN THIS COMING? THERE WERE CLUES…: TODAY IS THE 18th ANNIVERSARY OF THE LEGAL SERVICES ACT 2007 COMING INTO FORCE: SHOULD WE HAVE BEEN SURPRISED?
The reason why we litigators are infinitely wise is that we always deal with things in retrospect. We have the perfect vision of hindsight. Litigation is full of “why did you do that?”, “If you say that now why didn’t…
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 23: NOW THINGS GET EVEN MORE REMARKABLE: EXPERT WRITES TO THE COURT TO SAY “MY EVIDENCE WAS WRONG”: REGULATORY BODY THINKS THE REPORT WAS VERY WRONG…
The previous post recorded how it is still possible to be surprised by what goes on in litigation. We see that again here, but to a greater extent. After a trial and a judgment was given an expert wrote to…
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…
SHOULD A CLAIMANT BE GIVEN PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW THEIR OWN PART 36 OFFER? IS A “CHANGE OF MIND” A “CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES”: THE ISSUE CONSIDERED IN THE HIGH COURT
There are few cases which involve a claimant seeking to withdraw their own Part 36 offer we have a decision today here. The claimant made an offer and attempted to withdraw is shortly afterwards. The defendant accepted the offer within…
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…
“PLEADINGS AND EVIDENCE SERVE QUITE DIFFERENT PURPOSES”: THE NEED FOR CLAIMANTS TO PLEAD THEIR CASE WHEN APPLYING FOR AN INJUNCTION
We are looking at a case that deals with two issues: (i) the practice of seeking an injunction without having first issued proceedings; (ii) the desirability of a party seeking an injunction to put a fully pleaded case before the…
EXPERT WATCH 21: THE EXPERT WHO FAILED TO CONSIDER NEW EVIDENCE IN SUFFICIENT DETAIL AND “WHO WAS NOT PARTICULARLY OPEN TO RECONSIDERING HIS OPINION”
Here we look at a judgment about medical evidence in a personal injury action. The issue was one of causation – whether an earlier injury to the claimant’s leg “caused” a later decision to have that leg amputated. The critique…
MAZUR MATTERS 22: USEFUL LINKS: GUIDANCE FROM THE SRA (IN 2022) – WHICH SAID EXACTLY WHAT MAZUR SAID: A SITUATION HIDING IN PLAIN SIGHT…
Here we look at guidance given by the SRA in November 2022. The one thing that the SRA can point to is the fact that this guidance said, in clear terms, precisely what was said in Mazur about who can…
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…
(NOT) PROVING THINGS 272: AN ABSENT WITNESS LEADS TO ADVERSE INFERENCES BEING DRAWN: PROBLEM OCCUR WHEN YOUR CASE AT TRIAL IS WHOLLY DIFFERENT TO THE PLEADED CASE
Many people have noted that the argument that the court should draw adverse inferences from the absence of key witnesses is often bypassed by the courts, with judges preferring to base their decisions on the evidence of witnesses that are…
You must be logged in to post a comment.