PROVING THINGS 166: LYING IN COURT (& HOW THE JUDGE DECIDES WHO IS…)
A search term led someone to this blog today “how is it legal to get away with lying in court”. There is a whole host of material on the question of what is a “lie”, compared to a false or…
APPEAL ALLOWED WHEN THE TRIAL JUDGE OVERSTEPPED THE LINE
In C (A Child) (Judicial Conduct) [2019] EWFC B53 HHJ Rogers allowed an appeal in a family case. The unusual aspect of the appeal was that the main issue was the conduct of the trial judge and the appeal on…
HEATED LANGUAGE AND CAREFULLY CRAFTED WITNESS STATEMENTS: “METAPHORS OF WAR” RARELY (IF EVER) HELP IN LITIGATION
In Alesco Risk Management Services Ltd & Ors v Bishopsgate Insurance Brokers Ltd & Ors [2019] EWHC 2839 (QB) Mr Justice Freedman considered the language used in witness statements. The heat generated by intemperate language rarely helped the litigants involved….
WHY PROCEDURAL RULES ARE IMPORTANT (AND LEAD TO SUBSTANTIVE JUSTICE): “JUDGES ARE NOT SUPERHUMAN, AND DO NOT POSSESS SUPERNATURAL POWERS”
In Paralel Routs Ltd v Fedotov [2019] EWHC 2656 (Ch) HHJ Paul Matthews (sitting as a judge of the High Court) emphasised the importance of procedural rules. There are quite a few interesting observations in relation to disclosure, redaction, civil…
“NOT ALL JUDGES OR COUNSEL ARE HUMOURLESS AUTOMATONS”: NO JUDICIAL BIAS WHEN EVIDENCE GIVEN BY WAY OF A SONG
It is not often that appeals over planning decisions make their way to this blog. It must be even rarer for such appeals to consider the question and appropriateness of humour (and song) in the judicial process. That is what…
THE BACK TO BASICS SERIES: A RUNNING ACCOUNT: READ THEM ALL HERE
The “Back to Basics” series, as the title suggests, deals with some of the basic elements of civil procedure. It covers everything from applications and bundles to the taking of witness statements. The titles are often prompted by elements…
THE TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD HAVE FOUND THAT THE CLAIMANT WAS FUNDAMENTALLY DISHONEST: INADEQUATE DISCLOSURE LEADS TO QOCS BEING DISAPPLIED
In Haider v DSM Demolition Ltd [2019] EWHC 2712 (QB) Mr Justice Julian Knowles refused a claimant’s appeal against a finding that the defendant was not negligent. He granted the defendant relief from sanctions and allowed an appeal against a…
THE “BAD SINGING” CASE GETS TWO ENCORES: JUDGE FAILED TO MAKE FINDINGS OF FACT ON KEY ISSUES
I wrote about the first instance decision in Kogan v Martin & Ors [2019] EWCA Civ 1645 here. The Court of Appeal have ordered a retrial in the case. There are important observations about the role of the judge in…
PROVING THINGS 164: THE NEED FOR A CAR FOR PRIVATE PURPOSES IS NOT SELF PROVING AND THE COURT WILL NOT INFER SUCH A NEED.
In Hussain v EUI Ltd [2019] EWHC 2647 (QB) Mr Justice Pepperall dismissed a claimant’s appeal in relation to the assessment of damages. “Need for social and domestic purposes is not self-proving and, in this case, cannot simply be inferred”…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 67: EXPERTS ASKING THE COURT FOR DIRECTIONS: THIS CAN REALLY CUT THE MUSTARD…
One, unusual, aspect of the decision in Mustard v Flower & Ors [2019] EWHC 2623 (QB) is that the experts had sought directions from the court. This brings attention to the (apparently) little used provisions of CPR 35.14. Experts have the…
COURT ADMITS CLAIMANT’S TAPES OF CONSULTATIONS WITH DEFENDANT’S EXPERTS: PROBATIVE VALUE OUTWEIGHS REPREHENSIBLE CONDUCT
In Mustard v Flower & Ors [2019] EWHC 2623 (QB) Master Davison allowed the claimant to produce as evidence the tapes they had recorded of their consultations with the defendant’s medical experts. This decision raises some interesting issues. (The case…
DISTRICT JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE “PARTIALLY” RECUSED THEMSELVES: THINGS THAT SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN IN A WITNESS STATEMENT: A VERY INTERESTING ASSESSMENT OF COSTS…
I am grateful to Simon Fisher from DWF for providing me a copy of the judgment in Akers -v- Kirlkland [2019] EWHC 2176 (QB) Mr Justice Waksman discussed, in detail, the circumstances in which a judge should recuse themselves and…
THE HONEST WITNESS WHOSE EVIDENCE WAS NOT ACCEPTED – BUT WHO STILL WON HER CASE: A CLOSE ANALYSIS OF THE LAY AND EXPERT EVIDENCE IN MORDEL
The result of the judgment today in Mordel v Royal Berkshire NHS Foundation Trust [2019] EWHC 2591 (QB) has already been well publicised. A mother succeeded in her claim that the defendant trust was negligent in failing to check her…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 66: THE COURT HAS TO KNOW HOW MUCH AN EXPERT WILL COST: CPR 35.4
A party seeking to rely on expert evidence requires permission from the court. It is surprising how often the rule requiring the court to be provided with details of the cost of that expert is overlooked. “When parties apply for…
LAWYERS GIVING EVIDENCE 4: SOME COURTS MAY TAKE INTO ACCOUNT A CLIENT’S FAILURE TO GIVE FIRST HAND EVIDENCE
This series looks at the question of when, if ever, it is appropriate for a solicitor to swear an affidavit or make a statement in place of the client? This issue was considered by Stanley Burnton J in Bracken Partners…
LATE SERVICE OF WITNESS SUMMARIES: HERE’S AN INGENIOUS ARGUMENT – THAT DIDN’T WORK: PERMISSION TO ADDUCE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FROM PARTIES OWN WITNESS ALSO REFUSED
In Smith & Anor v Crawshay [2019] EWHC 2507 (Ch) HHJ Paul Matthews considered an argument that the defendant was allowed to rely on a witness summary. He also refused permission to adduce further evidence in evidence-in-chief from a witness…
SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM ISSUES, ANONYMITY, EXPEDITED TRIALS AND … SPEARMINT RHINO
I have been meaning to write more about anonymity and civil litigation, in particular orders made under CPR 16. This issue arose today in a surprising context in AAA -v- Rakoff [2019] EWHC 2525 (QB). The case raises issues in…
CIVIL PROCEDURE, COSTS, EVIDENCE AND – DINOSAURS : A REVIEW OF THE MONTH – ARTICLES AND POSTS (SEPTEMBER 2019)
Every month I plan to provide links to useful articles and posts on civil procedure. I am happy for anyone to send me links that are relevant to the topics that this blog covers. (Links to posts does not constitute…
LAWYERS GIVING EVIDENCE 3: THE SOLICITOR (GIVING EVIDENCE WHILST REPRESENTING HIS CLIENTS) HAD BECOME FAR TOO CLOSE TO THE CASE TO BE OBJECTIVE
In the third post on the dangers of lawyers giving evidence we are looking at the judgment of Recorder Monty QC in Afia v Mellor & Anor [2013] EW Misc 23 (CC). The only witness called for the defendants was…
PROVING THINGS 162: WHEN THE GOVERNMENT DOESN’T HAVE THE COMMONS TOUCH
Constitutional lawyers will be writing about the Supreme Court decision today for decades to come. However I want to look at the more basic issue of the evidence that was placed before the courts. This was not a case…
“WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A SKELETON ARGUMENT AND A WITNESS STATEMENT?” NOW THERE’S A QUESTION…
That very question “the difference between a skeleton argument and a witness statement” appeared in a search that led someone to this blog today. It may be worrying that someone has to ask. The important distinction is often ignored. Day…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 63: WHEN WILL THE COURT REDUCE THE NUMBER OF WITNESSES ALLOWED?
Here we are looking at CPR 32.2 (3) which gives the court express powers to identify or limit the number of witnesses a party may call. That power has now been considered several times by the courts. Firstly by Mr…
HOW DO YOU VALUE A FOOTBALL CLUB: EXPERTS DISCUSS THE ODDS: BLADES AWAY
There is an interesting passage in the judgment in UTB LLC v Sheffield United Ltd & Ors [2019] EWHC 2322 (Ch) in relation to experts. It is an interesting example of expert evidence of valuation in a, relatively unusual, case…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 62: ASKING LEADING QUESTIONS WHEN INTERVIEWING WITNESSES – CAN (OR WILL) LEAD TO PROBLEMS
Examination in chief is rare in civil cases, many (perhaps most) practitioners will never have seen it done in court. There is a rule against asking leading questions when taking a witness through their evidence. There is a good reason…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 61: SIMILAR FACT EVIDENCE IN CIVIL PROCEEDINGS
This post is caused by a search term that led to this blog “similar fact evidence in civil litigation”. This would be an apposite time to review the principles relating to similar fact evidence and the relevant case law. …
WITNESS STATEMENTS: THE FORENSIC AND PROFESSIONAL DANGERS OF FAILING TO CONSIDER, AND GIVE EVIDENCE OF, THE SOURCE AND INFORMATION AND BELIEF
The previous post on the judgment in Baynton-Williams v Baynton-Williams [2019] EWHC 2179 (Ch) gives me a chance to return to a hobby horse – the need to give the source of information and belief when signing a witness statement. Here…
AN ABSOLUTE CAR CRASH OF AN APPEAL: KNOW WHAT DOCUMENTS WERE BEFORE THE THE JUDGE – A BASIC ISSUE FOR ALL WOULD BE APPELLANTS
Appeals are always difficult. The appellate court has to be persuaded that the first-instance judge was “wrong”, and this is a fairly rigorous test. It is made far more difficult if the appellate court is given the wrong documents. Particularly…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 59: WHEN A CLIENT DISOWNS THEIR OWN WITNESS STATEMENT? SELF PROTECTION FOR THE LAWYER
There has been much discussion on Twitter tonight in relation to the language used in witness statements. That led to this account being given by “Sweary Expat” a lawyer based in the Cayman Islands (some people clearly have to suffer…
COURT OF APPEAL ORDER RETRIAL FOLLOWING JUDGE’S FAILURE TO GIVE ADEQUATE REASONS: THE “BUILDING BLOCKS” OF FACT FINDING
Attempts to appeal findings of fact are extremely common, so common that I have stopped writing about them. There is also a common theme – the judge should not have found that, says the appellant: it was a finding open…
THE DANGERS OF AN “ENTHUSIASTIC” EXPERT – CASTS DOUBTS ON THEIR RELIABILITY
Most clients are happy to find an expert witness who agrees with their case. Even better, it may be thought, is an eminent expert who feels very strongly about the case. However, as we have seen so often on this…
DELAY OF 18 MONTHS IN GIVING JUDGMENT DID NOT UNDERMINE THE JUDGE’S VIEW AS TO CREDIBILITY
In Nuttal & Anor v Kerr & Anor [2019] EWHC 1977 (QB) Mr Justice Freedman rejected an argument that an excessive delay in giving judgment meant that the trial judge’s conclusions were innately unreliable. (The judgment also reviews the authorities…
DISCLOSURE OF DOCUMENTS MENTIONED IN WITNESS STATEMENTS: MENTION MUST MEAN “SPECIFICALLY MENTION”
The judgment in Rudd v Bridle & Anor [2019] EWHC 1986 (QB) also considered, and rejected, the claimant’s application for specific disclosure of documents. Mr Justice Warby held that for an order to be made under CPR 31.15 there must be…
PROVING THINGS 160: DELAY MUST BE EXPLAINED: COURT CAN DIRECT THAT EXTRA EVIDENCE BE FILED
In Hendry v Hendry & Ors [2019] EWHC 1976 (Ch) Master Shuman refused the claimant’s application for an extension of time to bring proceedings under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. THE CASE The claimant was married…
PROVING THINGS 157: DEFECTS IN EVIDENCE “SO FUNDAMENTAL” THAT APPLICATION DISMISSED
In Mircom International Content Management & Consulting Ltd & Ors v Virgin Media Ltd & Anor [2019] EWHC 1827 (Ch) Mr Recorder Campbell QC (sitting as a High Court judge) refused an application on the grounds that the evidence was…
ADVICE TO A NEWLY QUALIFIED LITIGATOR (2): BE LEGALLY STREETWISE : A LITIGATION CLIENT’S STRATEGY MAY POSSIBLY BE TO BLAME YOU
In the second in this series I am reminding everyone of a very useful post from Darlingtons solicitors . I said at the time it was first written that it deserved wider publication, and they kindly agreed I could reproduce it. …
ADVICE TO A NEWLY QUALIFIED LITIGATOR (1): READ THIS CASE: BE WARY OF OPENING YOUR MOUTH TOO WIDE: TURN DOWN £1.5 MILLION AND GET £2.00 INSTEAD
A member of my family qualifies as a solicitor tomorrow and starts working in litigation. I have been pondering the best advice to give a newly qualified litigation solicitor. I intended a recap post of all those cases where litigants…
DRAFTING WITNESS STATEMENTS: THE FINER DETAIL: NO ROOM FOR A MARGIN OF ERROR
A search led to this blog today “witness statement margin” which led me to look this issue up and realise that, despite the dozens of posts on witness statements on this blog, the important issue of margin size has never…
MEMORY IS FLUID AND MALLEABLE: CENTRAL TO THE OUTCOME OF A TRIAL: GESTMIN CONSIDERED AND APPLIED
Another aspect of the judgment in Walsh v Greystone Financial Services Ltd [2019] EWHC 1719 (Ch) was the trial depended largely on the judge’s assessment of the evidence of the claimant. There was reference, unsurprisingly, to Gestmin. “Memory is fluid…
WHEN THE EXPERT WITNESS ACTUALLY SAYS THEY ARE AN “ADVOCATE”: WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN?
In LIC Telecommunications SARL & Anor v VTB Capital Plc & Ors [2019] EWHC 1747 (Comm) Mrs Justice Moulder made some telling observations in relation to the expert evidence. THE CASE The application concerned whether certain proceedings were duly authorised….
“CHARACTER EVIDENCE” IN CIVIL CASES: NOT ALLOWED (AND NOT MUCH USE ANYWAY)
In Walsh v Greystone Financial Services Ltd [2019] EWHC 1719 (Ch) Mr Justice Nugee made some observations about evidence that was, in part, “character evidence”. THE CASE The claimant brought an action seeking damages after being advised to invest in…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 50: THE POSTS SO FAR
The “back to basics” series has been going since April 2018. It has covered a surprising amount of topics. From how to draft an application to “litigation wishful thinking”. Some people have expressed surprise and how “basic” some points are…
A PARTY CAN’T DUMP DOCUMENTS ON THEIR OPPONENT THE NIGHT BEFORE A HEARING: JUDGE REFUSES PERMISSION TO RELY ON EVIDENCE SERVED VERY LATE
In Willow Corp S.À.R.L. v MTD Contractors Ltd [2019] EWHC 1591 (TCC) Mr Justice Pepperall refused to allow a party to rely on documents served very late in an application for summary judgment. The late “dumping” of documents, the evening…
WHEN THINGS GO WRONG IN LITIGATION (AND ONE DAY THEY WILL)- TELL SOMEONE, HAVE A PLAN, DON’T LIE, AND READ STEVE CORNFORTH’S BLOG
Steve Cornforth’s blog contains a post this week “Why does this keep happening?” He points to, yet another, case of a fee earner ” whose career in in tatters because they have tried to cover up mistakes”. The post contains…
PROVING THINGS 155: WITNESS EVIDENCE THAT GOES WRONG: HOTEL PROPRIETOR NOT LIABLE TO GUEST FOR ASSAULT BY TRESPASSER
In Al-Najar & Ors v The Cumberland Hotel (London) Ltd [2019] EWHC 1593 (QB) Mr Justice Dingemans found that proprietors of a hotel had not been in breach of duty when some of their guests had been assaulted by a…
THE ASSESSMENT OF WITNESS EVIDENCE: NOT A MINER MATTER: WITNESSES TEND TO REMEMBER WHAT THEY WANT TO BELIEVE
Many judgments in contested trial contain a section where the judge gives an overview of the witness evidence, and their assessment of the credibility of those who gave evidence. The judgment of HHJ Eyre QC in The National Union of…
FINDINGS OF FACT AND THE TASK OF THE TRIAL JUDGE: A REASONED DETERMINATION OF THE DISPUTE ON THE EVIDENCE AT TRIAL – NOT A SEARCH FOR “THE TRUTH”
There has been a spate of cases recently relating to appeals of findings of fact by a trial judge. There are major problems in such appeals, this is illustrated by the judgment of Mr Justice Andrew Baker in Auliffe &…
THE DANGERS OF A LAWYER GIVING EVIDENCE: A “SOMEWHAT STRANGLED VERSION” OF THE SOURCE OF INFORMATION & BELIEF: SUMMARY JUDGMENT APPLICATION DISMISSED BECAUSE OF PAUCITY OF FIRST-HAND EVIDENCE
There are numerous posts on the blog about the need for first-hand evidence to be given, and the dangers of a lawyer making witness statements. These risks are exemplified in the judgment of Chief Master Marsh today in The David…
THE EXPERT WITNESS AND THE “HIRED GUN”: THE FACT THAT EXPERTS WERE VERY EXPENSIVE (AND FEES WERE FIXED IN RETROSPECT) DID NOT MAKE THEM UNRELIABLE
In O’Leary v Mercy University Hospital Cork Ltd [2019] IESC 48 the Supreme Court of Ireland made some telling observations on the role of the expert witness. Problems with experts are clearly not confined to one jurisdiction. OPENING OBSERVATIONS OF…
GUIDANCE ON INSTRUCTING EXPERTS (4): THE SINGLE JOINT EXPERT IS NOT A DEMIGOD
This blog looked recently at the case of O v B-M [2019] EWFC B23 where the trial judge was critical of a jointly instructed expert’s attempt to find facts and state that something was “proven by overwhelming evidence”. That case contains…
ASKING QUESTIONS AFTER JUDGMENT: NOT TO BE USED IN AN ATTEMPT TO RE-OPEN THE CASE (OR ARGUE A DIFFERENT CASE ON DIFFERENT GROUNDS)
I am looking again at the decision in O v B-M [2019] EWFC B23. That case predates the more recent Court of Appeal judgment in Children [2019] EWCA Civ 898. However it is another example of a party attempting to use the…
You must be logged in to post a comment.