WITNESS STATEMENTS AND HILLSBOROUGH: AN ACADEMIC ANALYSIS OF HOW THE EVIDENCE WAS GATHERED
I have written several times about the major difficulties caused by the process of taking witness statements following the Hillsborough disaster. The process of taking statements is analysed by an academic in Hillsborough disaster: a revealing analysis of the language…
WHEN CAN A LAY WITNESS GIVE THEIR “OPINION”? SOMETHING YOU NEED TO KNOW
The judgment of Sir Michael Burton in Mad Atelier International BV v Manes [2021] EWHC 1899 (Comm) shows that it is essential for civil litigators to have detailed knowledge of what is “opinion” evidence and when it is allowed in a…
DEFENDANT UNSUCCESSFUL IN APPLICATION TO STRIKE OUT PART OF CLAIMANT’S WITNESS EVIDENCE: WHEN “HYPOTHETICAL” EVIDENCE MAY BE ADMISSIBLE
The judgment of Sir Michael Burton in Mad Atelier International BV v Manes [2021] EWHC 1899 (Comm) is possibly the first time that Practice Direction 57AC – Trial Witness Statements in the Business and Property Courts has been considered by the…
“CARE MUST BE TAKEN IN ASSESSING A WITNESS WHO IS REPLYING TO QUESTIONS ASKED THROUGH AN INTERPRETER”: SOME PROBLEMS EXEMPLIFIED
Some of the difficulties a court has when considering witness evidence through a translator are set out in the judgment of Deputy Judge Agnello QC in Jackson v Song [2021] EWHC 1636 (Ch). “I have considered the evidence of…
COURT REFUSES PERMISSION TO ADDUCE NEW EVIDENCE AFTER DRAFT JUDGMENT WAS CIRCULATED
In Karunia Holdings Ltd v Creativityetc Ltd [2021] EWHC 1864 (Ch) HHJ Halliwell considered, and refused, a claimant’s application to adduce new evidence after a draft judgment had been handed down in an application for summary judgment. ” The…
TRANSCRIBERS, LIVE RECORDING AND COURT HEARINGS: COURT SENDS OUT A WARNING: FOLLOW THE RULES AND GET PERMISSION IN ADVANCE
In JR & B Farming Limited v Hewitt [2021] EWHC 1704 (Comm) HH- Davis-White QC (sitting as a High Court judge) issued a clear warning to parties and transcription services that they must follow the correct procedure if a record…
IF YOU HAVE GOT ISSUES WITH DISCLOSURE YOU SHOULD HAVE SORTED THESE OUT WELL BEFORE TRIAL: HIGH COURT JUDGMENT
The judgment of Mr Justice Martin Spencer in Chouza v Martins & Ors [2021] EWHC 1669 (QB) contains much of interest and importance to anyone involved in fatal accident litigation. Indeed I will be writing a series of posts on…
WITNESS STATEMENTS & HILLSBOROUGH (A REPEAT II): CONFIRMATION BIAS AT ITS WORST
The tragic events of Hillsborough are in the news again. I am here repeating a post first written in 2016. The post is on one small part of the process: the initial gathering of evidence. It was the flawed nature…
CLAIMANTS WIDE RANGING EVIDENCE EXCLUDED: HIGH COURT DECISION TODAY
In BB & Ors v Al Khayyat & Ors [2021] EWHC 1499 (QB) Mr Justice Chamberlain allowed, in part, an application by a defendant that certain evidence put forward by the claimants in relation to an application be excluded. THE…
ARGUING THAT A CONVICTION FOLLOWING A GUILTY PLEA WAS WRONG: GUIDANCE FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL
In Munir v Revenue And Customs [2021] EWCA Civ 799 the Court of Appeal considered the steps available to a litigant who wished to argue that a criminal conviction was erroneous. In particular a litigant most probably needs to waive…
HILLSBOROUGH AND WITNESS STATEMENTS 1 (A REPEAT): THE INITIAL PROCESS AND SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENTS
This is a repeat of a post first written on this blog in April 2016. There is always a danger in writing about a tragedy that the human consequences, the pain and suffering of the victims and family members are…
LAWYERS FAILURE TO PROVIDE OVERSIGHT OF EXPERTS LEADS TO EXCLUSION OF THEIR EVIDENCE: EXPERT EVIDENCE IS “NOT A MATTER OF RIGHT”
Over the years we have seen some biting judgments about the conduct of experts in civil litigation. I struggle to recall one as extraordinary as the judgment of Mrs Justice Joanna Smith in Dana UK AXLE Ltd v Freudenberg FST…
WITNESS STATEMENTS: HILLSBOROUGH AND THE ROLE OF THE SOLICITOR
The previous post on this blog presented what is most probably the first academic research into the taking of witness statements. It is remarkable that such a central part of the lawyer’s role remains unresearched. The blunt reality is that…
RESEARCH INTO THE TAKING OF WITNESS STATEMENTS: A POST FROM PROFESSOR PENNY COOPER AND DR MICHELLE MATTISON
A recent High Court decision emphasised that all legal cases are, in reality, all about the facts. Despite that there is very little research into the role of the judge as fact finder. There is even less research on the…
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DIRECTIONS IN THE FAMILY COURT: “THEY ARE NOT PREFERENCES, REQUESTS OR MERE INDICATIONS; THEY ARE ORDERS”
I am always wary of venturing into an area occupied by many exceptional family bloggers. However court order, and in particular compliance with court orders, is part of the regular diet of this blog. That is why a case with…
JOURNALIST ALLOWED TO VIEW DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN COURT JUDGMENT SIX YEARS AGO: CPR 5.4C CONSIDERED
In Goodley v The Hut Group Ltd [2021] EWHC 1193 (Comm) Mr Justice Calver allowed a journalist’s application for sight of documents referred to in open court. The judgment contains some important observations in relation to CPR 5.4C. THE…
OBJECTING TO EVIDENCE BEING ADMITTED CAUSES PROBLEMS ON APPEAL : CLAIMANT GETS BITTEN BY ITS OWN HORSE
In Lifestyle Equities C.V. & Anor v Ahmed & Anor [2021] EWCA Civ 675 the Court of Appeal allowed, in part, an assessment against the assessment of damages. What is interesting here is the point that the claimants objection to…
A PERSON GIVING EVIDENCE AS TO EARNINGS AND PENSION MAY (OR MAY NOT) BE AN EXPERT: COURT CONSIDERS THE ISSUES
Returning to the judgment of Mr Justice Cavangh in TVZ & Ors v Manchester City Football Club Ltd [2021] EWHC 1179 (QB) the judge considered, but did not decide, whether statements from third parties as to earnings and pensions were…
A SCHEME SETTING UP COMPENSATION FOR VICTIMS IS NOT SUBJECT TO WITHOUT PREJUDICE PRIVILEGE
There are many procedural issues considered in the judgment of TVZ & Ors v Manchester City Football Club Ltd [2021] EWHC 1179 (QB). Here I want to look at one – whether the trial judge should be informed of the…
WHEN YOU HAVE TWO IDENTICAL ACTIONS ON THE GO AT ONCE: COURT CONSIDERS THIS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS
In Dixon v Santander Asset Finance Plc & Anor [2021] EWHC 1044 (Ch) HHJ Saffman (sitting as a High Court Judge) granted the defendant summary judgment on the basis that the claim against it was clearly statute barred. The judge…