THE ORDER THE COURTS CAN MAKE WHEN A DEFENDANT HAS DIED AND THERE ARE NO EXECUTORS OR ADMINISTRATORS
Another aspect of the judgment Currie v Thornley & Anor [2019] EWHC. 172 (Ch) relates to the order the courts can make when a defendant in a civil action has died. THE CASE One of two defendants in a civil action had…
PROVING THINGS 139: WHEN THE JUDGE HAS TO DECIDE WHETHER ITS ALL BEEN A BIT OF A CRUSH
Most of the cases looked at in this series are decisions in the High Court. However issues of witness credibility and accuracy are a constant issue throughout virtually every layer of court and tribunal. In Prosser v British Airways Plc [2018]…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 28: EXHIBITS TO WITNESS STATEMENTS AND AFFIDAVITS
The “exhibiting” of documents to witness statements and affidavits is common. It is surprising how common it is for the exhibit, and the witness statement, to fail to comply with the rules. Here we look at the rules relating to…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 26: WHEN CAN A WITNESS BE EXCLUDED FROM THE COURT HEARING?
In civil proceedings witnesses are commonly present throughout an entire action. On occasions a request is made that witnesses be excluded. There is little authority for the proposition that a court can exclude witnesses or guidance as to how the discretion…
THE ADMISSIBILITY OF POLICE REPORTS AS EVIDENCE: NO NEGLIGENCE WHEN DRIVER FEARED HE WAS TO BE ASSAULTED: A CASE TO POINT
In Mohmed v Barnes & Anor [2019] EWHC 87 (QB) Mr Justice Turner found that a driver had not been negligent when he drove into a pedestrian an attempt to escape an assault. The case is important in relation to an…
UNDERSTANDING LEGAL TERMINOLOGY: USEFUL GUIDANCE: IT DOESN’T ALL RES IPSA LOQUITUR YOU KNOW
The Radio 4 programme “Word of Mouth” had a programme last week on “legal language”: “demystifying the language of the court room”. This led one of the participants, barrister, author and blogger Lucy Reed to write a post “Why do…
EXPERTS IN THE FAMILY COURT: PERMISSION TO ADDUCE EXPERT EVIDENCE REFUSED
I usually look at cases in the family courts when there are judgments that may be of some interest to civil litigators. The judgment of Mr Justice Keehan in M v Derbyshire County Council & Ors [2018] EWHC 3734 (Fam) …
PROVING THINGS 137: PROVING A DEFENCE TO A COUNTERCLAIM: NO EVIDENCE TO PROVE MATTERS – THEN JUDGMENT IS GOING TO BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU
The judgment in UK Dry Risers Ltd v Maher [2019] EWHC 44 (QB) shows the importance of being able to prove a defence to a counterclaim. The claimant succeeded on a claim for £3,690.72, the defendant obtained a judgment for £13,628.00. …
WITNESS STATEMENTS AND TRANSLATION: WHY YOU CAN’T RELY ON PD 22 IN RELATION TO WITNESS STATEMENTS
This is the third post on this subject in one day. Someone responded to the first post on the need to for witness statements to be in the language of the witness by asserting that Practice Direction 22 could be…
WHEN A WITNESS CANNOT SPEAK ENGLISH: INTERPRETING THE RULES: GUIDANCE FROM THE CASES
If a witness cannot speak English and a witness statement is required what needs to be done? There are several cases where the issue of translation has caused a problem at trial. The best guidance comes from the Family Division….
ADVERSE INFERENCES DRAWN WHEN SOLICITOR DID NOT GIVE EVIDENCE: IF YOU’VE HAD £22 MILLION YOU NEED TO EXPLAIN IT
In The Lord Chancellor v Blavo & Co Solictors Ltd & Anor [2018] EWHC 3556 (QB) Mr Justice Pepperall found it was appropriate to draw adverse inferences when key participants did not give evidence. It is another example of the principles…
“DENTON” PRINCIPLES DO NOT APPLY TO SECTION 33 APPLICATIONS: HIGH COURT REJECTS DEFENDANT’S ARGUMENT THAT RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS PRINCIPLES SHOULD BE APPLIED TO LIMITATION ACT
In Ellis v Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust & Ors [2018] EWHC 3505 (Ch) HHJ McKenna (sitting in the High Court) roundly rejected an argument that the court should apply “Denton” type guidance to a claimant’s application to disapply the…
PROVING THINGS 135: WHAT A DIFFERENCE CROSS-EXAMINATION CAN MAKE
There has been much controversy recently about the need for cross-examination when allegations are made. I have no intention of entering that controversy, however those who want to be fully informed on these matters should read the judgment of Mr…
CROSS-EXAMINATION: THE DUTY TO PUT A CASE: A GEM OF A DECISION
In W Nagel (A Firm) v Pluczenik Diamond Company NV [2018] EWCA Civ 2640 the Court of Appeal made an important observation about the duty of a cross-examiner to put their client’s case to an opposing witness. This provides an opportunity…
PROVING THINGS 134: WINNING A FEW BATTLES BUT LOSING THE WAR: ALL IS NOT ROSY IN THESE CLAIMANTS’ GARDEN
Law students have probably already been taught, and will be lectured for generations to come, about the implications of the Court of Appeal decision in Lejonvarn v Burgess & Anor [2017] EWCA Civ 254. If any of those law students plan…
LINKS TO GUIDANCE ON DRAFTING WITNESS STATEMENT: INTERACTIVE BLOGGING
Yesterday I was speaking on the APIL Fatal Accidents course. One of the points I was making was the importance of reading the rules and and guidance in relation to the drafting of witness statements. The delegates asked for links…
PROVING THINGS 133: FALLING OFF A BED AND THE PIECES OF THE JIGSAW
The case of Busby v Berkshire Bed Company Ltd [2018] EWHC 2976 (QB) was one of those cases that centred on credible evidence. It is an example of where witnesses can be totally honest but mistaken in their recollection. The judge…
YOU CANNOT ARGUE A “NEW” CASE AT THE APPEAL STAGE: “RACING” DRIVERS NOT INVOLVED IN A CRIMINAL JOINT ENTERPRISE: FATAL ACCIDENT ACT DAMAGES AWARDED
In Wallett & Ors v Vickers [2018] EWHC 3088 (QB) Mr Justice Males overturned a decision in favour of the defendant and awarded damages to the estate of a deceased driver. The important procedural issue is that the defendant were not…
WHEN WITNESSES DIDN’T KNOW WHAT THEY WERE SAYING: WHY THE SOURCE OF INFORMATION AND BELIEF IS IMPORTANT
There is a short passage in the judgment in GPP Big Field LLP & Anor v Solar EPC Solutions SL [2018] EWHC 2866 (Comm) that shows (not for the first time this year) that those responsible for drafting witness statements often…
REVEALING THE TRUE IDENTITY OF A WITNESS IN CIVIL PROCEEDINGS: APPLICATION FOR ANONYMITY SCUTTLED
In the judgment today in Suez Fortune Investments Ltd & Anor v Talbot Underwriting Ltd & Ors [2018] EWHC 2929 (Comm) Mr Justice Teare allowed an application by the defendants that the true identity of a witness be disclosed. The witness…
EXTENSIVE WITNESS EVIDENCE THAT WAS OF NO USE: A COMMON FINDING
We have already looked at the judgment of Mrs Justice Cockerill in Recovery Partners GP Ltd & Anor v Rukhadze & Ors [2018] EWHC 2918 (Comm). It is worth looking at what the judge had to say about the witness evidence before…
UNDERSTANDING THE CODED LANGUAGE OF THE LEGAL DIRECTORIES: HUMBLEBRAGS AND BEYOND
This if the time of year that several legal directories are published. It leads to an inevitable pattern of behaviour. Thanks to law lecturer John Bates we can all now understand the coded language of the legal directory. THE PATTERN…
THE STATEMENT OF TRUTH: WHY YOU AND YOUR CLIENTS NEED REGULAR REMINDERS OF THE RULES & CASES
In Recovery Partners GP Ltd & Anor v Rukhadze & Ors [2018] EWHC 2918 (Comm) Mrs Justice Cockerill made some important observations that apply to every aspect of litigation. We looked at the case yesterday: a stark reminder was provided of the dangers…
WITNESS STATEMENTS AND SOURCES OF INFORMATION AND BELIEF: 10 KEY POINTS THAT LITIGATORS SHOULD KNOW: A JUDGE MAKE GET A BIT IRKED IF YOU TRY TO USURP THEIR ROLE
The post earlier today on the deficiencies in a witness statement that led to it being excluded provides a good opportunity to reprise certain key points. Not only was the excluded statement essentially “commentary” and “opinion” it also failed to…
PROVING THINGS 130: BY THE TIME OF TRIAL YOU SHOULD REALLY KNOW WHAT YOU HAVE LOST: SOME OF THESE CLAIMANTS MAY HAVE SUFFERED NO LOSS AT ALL
The final paragraphs of the judgment in Anderson & Ors v Sense Network Ltd [2018] EWHC 2834 shows that some of the claimants in that case were unable to establish their losses. Indeed two of the claimants may have suffered no…
ADVISING YOUR CLIENT ON LITIGATION RISKS 4: THE SCOPE OF THE SOLICITOR’S RETAINER: TURN DOWN AN OFFER OF £500,000 AND LOSE – THREE TIMES
In Lyons v Fox Williams LLP [2018] EWCA Civ 2347 the Court of Appeal turned down the claimant’s appeal. The claimant had been unsuccessful in an action for professional negligence against a firm of solicitors. He was equally unsuccessful on appeal….
NEW WITNESS STATEMENTS AND EXPERT EVIDENCE NOT ALLOWED: DENTON APPLIED TO CASE MANAGEMENT: COMPLIANCE WITH DIRECTIONS IS THE ONLY SAFE OPTION
In SJ Moore (Jeweller) Limited -v- Squibb Group Limited [2018] EWHC 2731 (QB) Denton principles were considered and applied when the defendant wanted to adduce new evidence. What is notable here is the fact that the defendant had the expert…
“RECKLESS EXPERTS”: SHOULDERING THE BLAME: WHEN THE EXPERT HAS NOT READ THE DOCUMENTS TO HAND
The judgment in Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Ltd v Khan & Ors [2018] EWHC 2581 (QB) was looked at earlier. It made the point that “reckless” reporting by experts can lead to experts being in contempt of court. This led me to…
WHEN WITNESSES DO NOT ATTEND TRIAL 1: WITNESS EVIDENCE NOT ALLOWED: A BROKEN FINGER IS NOT A GOOD EXCUSE NOT TO ATTEND COURT
This is the first of two posts today in relation to witnesses not attending to be cross-examined. In EC Medica Group UK Ltd & Ors v Dearnley-Davison & Ors [2018] EWHC 1952 (Ch) Kelyn Bacon QC (sitting as a Deputy High…
PROVING THINGS 128: CLAIMANT’S EVIDENCE NOT FULL, CLEAR, FRANK OR UNEQUIVOCAL IN RESPONSE TO APPLICATION FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS
In Danilina v Chernukhin & Ors [2018] EWHC 2503 (Comm) Mr Justice Teare was critical of the quality of the evidence that the respondent adduced in response to an application for security for costs. THE CASE The defendants sought an…
ADVISING ON LITIGATION RISKS 1: YOU CAN BE BELIEVED AS A WITNESS AND STILL LOSE YOUR CASE
Earlier posts have looked at the concept of “litigation risks”. This is something we are all aware of as practising lawyers. We advise on those risks on a daily basis. However very little is written about this. This is the…
WHY SOLICITORS’ ATTENDANCE NOTES CAN BE IMPORTANT: CONSTRUING A CONSENT ORDER: DICTIONARIES AND REASONABLENESS
In Hague v British Telcommunications Plc (Immunotherapy : Reasonableness of Treatment : Private Dictionary Principle) [2018] EWHC 2227 (QB) Master Thornett had to construe the terms of a consent order. It is a case that emphasises the importance of attendance notes. …
BACK TO BASICS 15: CHALLENGING THE AUTHENTICITY OF DOCUMENTS: A PRIMER
In the 10th post in this series I 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…
PROVING THINGS 127: WRITTEN CONTRACT – WHAT WRITTEN CONTRACT? APPLICATION FOR AN INJUNCTION FAILS WHEN CLAIMANT CANNOT PROVE A CONTRACT WAS EVER SIGNED
The judgment of HHJ Neil Bidder QC in Tenon FM Ltd v Cawley & Ors [2018] EWHC 1972 (QB) shows a failure by a claimant to prove the most basic of issues. The claimant could not establish that a defendant had…
APPEALING FINDINGS OF FACT: THE WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE IS A CONTEXTUAL EVALUATION FOR THE JUDGE: MEDICAL RECORDS ARE NOT DEFINITIVE
We are looking, for the second time, at the Court of Appeal decision yesterday in Manzi -v- King’s College NHS Foundation Trust [2018] EWCA Civ 1882. That part of the judgment that deals with findings of fact at trial and appeals against…
DRAWING ADVERSE INFERENCES WHEN WITNESSES ARE ABSENT: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION TODAY: COURT HAS A DISCRETION AS TO THE INFERENCES TO BE DRAWN
I am grateful to barrister Luka Krsljanin for sending me a copy of hte Court of Appeal decision today in Manzi -v- King’s College NHS Foundation Trust [2018] EWCA Civ 1882. The Court rejected an argument that the trial judge…
PROVING THINGS 123: THE PERSONAL INJURY CLAIMANT WHO COULD NOT SAY WHETHER OR NOT HE HAD BEEN INJURED
We looked at the case of Kavak v FMC – HHJ Pearce Manchester CC 24.04.18) in an earlier post, primarily in the context of re-allocation. However that case provides a clear illustration of a failure to prove a basic element of…
CARE EXPERTS, ALLOWED ON APPEAL: NEW EVIDENCE ALSO ALLOWED
In Ryan v Resende [2018] EWHC 2145 (QB) Mr Justice Goose allowed the claimant’s appeal and granted permission for it to rely on a care expert. The judgment shows the importance of having evidence to hand to counter an argument that…
THE KIMATHI DECISION 4: THE APPROACH TO WITNESS EVIDENCE: MEMORIES ARE FLUID AND MALLEABLE: SOME KEY POINTS ON GESTMIN
This is the fourth in the series that looks at the decision in Kimathi & Ors v The Foreign And Commonwealth Office [2018] EWHC 2066 (QB). The trial judge was looking at evidence of matters that had happened some 50 years earlier,…
PROVING THINGS 122: THE CLAIMANT MAY NOT BE DISHONEST BUT SHE IS NOT ACCURATE: A HIGH IQ IS NO GUARANTEE OF COMMONSENSE
Many cases rest on the credibility of witnesses. A detailed examination can be found in the judgment of HH Judge Saggerson (sitting as a High Court Judge) in Hibberd-Little v Carlton [2018] EWHC 1787 (QB). There are issues here in relation…
LAWYERS (& OTHERS) – WHY YOU SHOULD WATCH WHAT YOU SAY IN THE PUB: LEGAL PROFESSIONAL PRIVILEGE OUSTED BY INIQUITY OF ADVICE GIVEN
In the judgment today in X v. Y Ltd (PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Disclosure) [2018] UKEAT 0261 Mrs Justice Slade held that an email marked “Legally Privileged and Confidential” did not have the protection of professional privilege. The judgment also shows…
THE KIMATHI DECISION 2: TRANSLATORS ON TRIAL: ALSO A LOOK AT THE GUIDANCE ON TRANSLATING WITNESS STATEMENTS
This is the second in the series that looks at the decision in Kimathi & Ors v The Foreign And Commonwealth Office [2018] EWHC 2066 (QB). Here we look at issues relating to the translators. It shows the way in which the…
CHANGING WITNESS STATEMENTS: COMPARE AND CONTRAST: EDITING STATEMENTS CAN AFFECT CREDIBILITY
The judgment case of ML (A Child) v Guy’s And St Thomas’ National Healthcare Foundation Trust [2018] EWHC 2010 has an interesting passage on witness statements. It is an example of how early witness statements that were not initially disclosed can…
CIVIL PROCEDURE:BACK TO BASICS 9: THE COURT NOT ENTITLED TO REJECT WRITTEN EVIDENCE UNLESS IT IS “SIMPLY INCREDIBLE”
There is a short passage in Wards Solicitors v Hendawi [2018] EWHC 1907 (Ch) HHJ Paul Matthews (sitting as a judge of the High Court), that serves as a reminder of a basic principle in interlocutory proceedings – a court will not…
PROVING THINGS 121: FAILING TO PROVE LOSS OF EARNINGS, AND THE APPROPRIATE APPROACH WHERE FUTURE TREATMENT IS UNCERTAIN
Yesterday I looked at Welsh v Walsall Healthcare NHS Trust [2018] EWHC 1917 (QB) and the comments from the judge in relation to the joint statement of experts. The case also contains interesting observations in relation to proving damages. These are observations on matters…
EXPERTS, LAWYERS AND THE JOINT-REPORT (1): JUST ONE AGENDA PLEASE
Curiously there are two cases today that deal with the role of lawyers and the joint report. The first I will look at is the judgment of Mrs Justice Yip in Welsh v Walsall Healthcare NHS Trust [2018] EWHC 1917 (QB)….
THE “TRUE VOICE OF THE WITNESSES ARE NOTABLY LACKING FROM THEIR WITNESS STATEMENTS”: INORDINATE AMOUNT OF TIME & COSTS SPENT FOR NO GOOD REASON
In Estera Trust (Jersey) Ltd & Anor v Singh & Ors [2018] EWHC 1715 (Ch) Mr Justice Fancourt made some telling observations about the usefulness of witness statements prepared for the case. This is a common observation in relation to witness…
PROVING THINGS 117: A DISHONEST POLICE OFFICER IS “MALICIOUS”: PROVING A CASE FOR MALICIOUS PROSECUTION AND MISFEASANCE IN PUBLIC OFFICE
In the judgment in Rees & Ors v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2018] EWCA Civ 1587 the Court of Appeal overturned a finding that a police force was not liable for malicious prosecution and misfeasance in public office because…
FIFTH BIRTHDAY REVIEW 7: THE “BACK TO BASICS” SERIES
I am looking back at the posts that have been part of a series over the past five years. The “Back to Basics” posts are part of a series that is very much ongoing. The aim of each post is…
MORE ABOUT WITNESS STATEMENTS AND THE ICI CASE: WHEN EVIDENCE IS NOT ADMISSIBLE AND (WHEN IT IS) IT IS NOT RELIABLE
We are looking again at aspects of the judgment of Mr Justice Fraser in Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd v Merit Merrell Technology Ltd [2018] EWHC 1577 (TCC).The previous post in this case looked at the “duplicate” witness statements of the defendant. Here…
You must be logged in to post a comment.