JUDGE WAS RIGHT TO REFUSE CLAIMANT’S APPLICATION TO ADJOURN AND NOT TO ALLOW SINGLE WITNESS IN PLACE OF JOINT WITNESS: HIGH COURT DECISION TODAY
In Hinson v Hare Realizations Ltd (2) [2020] EWHC 2386 (QB) Mr Justice Martin Spencer refused a claimant’s appeal where it was argued that a trial judge should have adjourned a trial and given the claimant permission to rely on…
SIMILAR WITNESS STATEMENTS (WITH THE SAME TYPOS) AND WITNESS CONFERRING WITH OTHERS: WHY “I SAY THE SAME AS THEM” RARELY HELPS
In the judgment today in Dr Jones Yeovil Ltd v The Stepping Stone Group Ltd [2020] EWHC 2308 (TCC) HHJ Russen QC (sitting as a High Court judge) made some observations about the witnesses giving evidence. The fact that some…
CHALLENGING THE AUTHENTICITY OF DOCUMENTS: A REMINDER OF THE BASIC RULES: IF YOU DON’T DISPUTE YOU ARE DEEMED TO ADMIT AUTHENTICITY
Earlier posts have 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 a notice that you wish…
EXPERT EVIDENCE UNDER THE MICROSCOPE: THE TRIAL JUDGE CANNOT OVERTURN CONCLUSIONS OF A “UNCONTROVERTED” EXPERT: HIGH COURT DECISION TODAY
In Griffiths v TUI UK Ltd [2020] EWHC 2268 (QB) Mr Justice Martin Spencer considered the question of the approach of the trial judge to “uncontroverted” expert evidence. He overturned the decision of the trial judge in favour of the…
SIMILAR FACT EVIDENCE: AN OVERVIEW AND THE CASES: THE RELEVANT GUIDANCE CONSIDERED
The previous post about the Court of Appeal decision today in relation to similar fact evidence provides an opportunity to recap on some basic principles. OVERVIEW OF THE RELEVANT PRINCIPLES A detailed review of the cases appears below. By…
PROVING PROPENSITY AND SIMILAR FACT EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES: COURT OF APPEAL JUDGMENT TODAY
In the judgment today in R v P (Children: Similar Fact Evidence) [2020] EWCA Civ 1088 the Court of Appeal set out the principles relating to similar fact evidence in civil and family cases. The case is also an example…
PROVING THINGS 180: ACCEPTING A LIFT WITH A DRUNKEN DRIVER, WHILST DRUNK: DEFENDANT FAILS TO ESTABLISH THAT FAILING TO WEAR A SEAT BELT MADE A DIFFERENCE
The judgment today of HHJ Robinson (sitting as a judge of the High Court) in Campbell v Advantage Insurance Company Ltd [2020] EWHC 2210 (QB) makes interesting reading. 1. A claimant cannot properly argue that he was too drunk himself…
PROVING THINGS 179: SECRETARY OF STATE’S “SUPERFICIAL INVESTIGATION” FAILS TO PROVE THAT DEFENDANT WAS A DE FACTO DIRECTOR
In the judgment given today in Secretary of State for Business, Energy And Industrial Strategy v Rahman [2020] EWHC 2213 (Ch) HHJ Paul Matthews found that the Secretary of State had failed to prove that the defendant had ever been…
EVIDENCE OBTAINED BY TORTURE: THE SUPREME COURT CONSIDERS THE APPROPRIATE APPROACH WHEN TORTURE CANNOT BE PROVEN
In the judgment today in Shagang Shipping Company Ltd v HNA Group Company Ltd [2020] UKSC 34 the Supreme Court sends out a clear message about the use (or rather non-use) of evidence obtained by torture in civil proceedings. This…
CORONAVIRUS LAW: COVID AND CONTACT BETWEEN PARENTS AND CHILD
The number of cases dealing with issues relating to COVID have reduced. However issues still arise. In the judgement today in D-S (Contact With Children In Care: Covid-19) [2020] EWCA Civ 1031 the Court of Appeal set out clear principles…
ASSESSING WITNESS CREDIBILITY A “REASONING PROCESS VITIATED BY AT LEAST THREE FUNDAMENTAL ERRORS OF APPROACH”: HIGH COURT LAYS DOWN THE LAW
In Dutta, R (On the Application Of) v General Medical Council (GMC) [2020] EWHC 1974 (Admin) Mr Justice Warby set out a powerful critique of the reasoning given by the Medical Practitioners Tribunal. The judgment contains an essential summary of…
WHEN WITNESS EVIDENCE GOES OFF TRACK: CREDIBILITY SPRINTS AWAY
There are several recent cases where judges deal with the issue of credibility and witnesses. The first we are looking it is the decision of HHJ Melissa Clarke in British Amateur Gymnastics Association v UK Gymnastics Ltd & Ors [2020]…
CIVIL EVIDENCE AND THE BURDEN OF PROOF: WHEN WHO BEARS THE BURDEN CAN HAVE A MAJOR EFFECT ON THE OUTCOME OF A CASE
The judgment of Mr Justice Birss in Emmanuel v Avison & Ors [2020] EWHC 1696 (Ch) contains some interesting observations about the burden of proof. The burden lay with the claimant, despite the fact that if different proceedings had been…
WHEN SHOULD A SOLICITOR MAKE A WITNESS STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THEIR CLIENTS? A REVIEW OF THE CASES
Last week I gave an in-house talk to a London firm of solicitors.* One of the matters we discussed was when (if ever) it was appropriate for a solicitor to make a witness statement in support of an interlocutory application. …
SOLICITORS GIVING EVIDENCE: A DUTY TO BE COMPLETELY HONEST AND SCRUPULOUSLY ACCURATE
There are particular dangers for solicitors giving evidence. This morning I wrote about the common (but totally wrong) practice of solicitors using witness statements to argue points of law. In Ras Al Khaimah Investment Authority v Azima [2020] EWHC 1686…
WITNESS STATEMENTS “NOT IN MY STOCK IN TRADE”: HIGH COURT JUDGE HIGHLY CRITICAL OF ARGUMENTATIVE AND LARGELY IRRELEVANT WITNESS STATEMENTS
Last week I wrote about the report on witness evidence working group of the business and property courts. That report commented that drafting witness statements (more accurately evidence in chief) was no longer part of a lawyer’s “stock in trade”. …
COUNSEL’S ADVICE IS NOT EVIDENCE: REALLY, ITS NOT.
There is an interesting consideration of the role of counsel’s advice in the judgment of HHJ Vincent in AZ v BZ (financial remedies appeal) [2020] EWFC 28. In a financial remedies hearing, a judge was wrong to firstly admit, and…
CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE TRIAL HELD REMOTELY: AND IT WORKED WELL…
I have highlighted some cases where remote hearings have had difficulties. In Jones v Ministry of Defence [2020] EWHC 1603 (QB) the judgment indicates that the remote hearing in a clinical negligence case worked well. THE CASE The case was…
WHEN THE SKY FALLS IN: WHAT TO DO WHEN THINGS GO WRONG IN LITIGATION: WEBINAR 6th AUGUST 2020
I have been writing on this blog for some time now that lawyers should be taught that mistakes happen. We should aim to avoid them but if errors are made they are often rectifiable if dealt with correctly and quickly. …
AN EXPERT WITH A CONFLICT OF INTEREST: SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED
I am giving a webinar on the 29th June 2020 on the Perils and Pitfalls of Expert Evidence. I have not found that there is any shortage of material. That material is added to in the judgment of Mr Justice…