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…
THE “BACK TO BASICS” SERIES 80: 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”. Two years on this is a good time to recap on…
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 79: NON-DISCLOSURE OF THE OTHER SIDE’S WITNESS STATEMENT
Today we are looking at CPR 32.12. The rule preventing a party using the other side’s witness statements for purposes other than the action they were served in. THE RULE Use of witness statements for other purposes 32.12 (1) Except…
OPINION EVIDENCE AND DEFECTIVE WITNESS STATEMENTS: EVIDENCE NOT ALLOWED AT TRIAL
In Harlow -v- Aspect Contracts Ltd [2020] EWHC 1488 (TCC) Harlow v Aspect Contracts Ltd [2020] EWHC 1488 (TCC) Alexander Nissen QC (sitting as a High Court judge) allowed an application preventing the defendant relying on a witness statement that was,…
EXPERT EVIDENCE: THE PERILS AND THE PITFALLS: WEBINAR 29th JUNE 2020
The problems that experts can cause in cases (often to the side that instructed them) have been extensively catalogued on this blog over the years. On the 29th June I am giving a webinar on the perils and pitfalls of…
COVID REPEATS 40: ASKING LEADING QUESTIONS AND WITNESS STATEMENTS: THIS IS GOING TO END BADLY: EIGHT CRUCIAL POINTS ON EVIDENCE (& THEN 10 MORE)
This week we are looking at witness statements and the process of gathering witness evidence. In August 2015 I wrote at length about the judgment of Mr Justice Jay in Susan Saunderson & Others -v- Sonae Industria (UK) Ltd [2015] EWCA…
WHY YOU NEED TO KNOW THE RULES AND GUIDANCE IN RELATION TO SURVEILLANCE EVIDENCE: A WEBINAR
In the judgment discussed earlier today in Tully v Exterion Media (UK) Ltd & Anor [2020] EWHC 1119 (QB), Master McCloud, made some important observations in relation to how the courts deal with surveillance evidence. As a result of that…
NON-COMPLIANCE WITH ORDER FOR EXPERT EVIDENCE AND THE CLAIMANT’S APPLICATION GOES UP IN SMOKE…
Possibly the most difficult position you could put yourself in in litigation is for the court to make an order, do something the court did not allow, not get permission in advance, and then seek relief from sanctions thereafter. …
COVID REPEATS 37: CROSS-EXAMINING EXPERT WITNESSES: HINTS, TIPS AND LINKS
The impartiality, or otherwise, of expert witness witnesses was in the news in June 2014. Since expert evidence has been a constant theme on this blog. This would seem an appropriate time to revisit a post about the cross-examination of…
COVID REPEATS 36: DEFENDANT’S EXPERT TOLD TO GET ON HIS BIKE: WHEN A PARTY “WISELY” PLACES NO RELIANCE ON THEIR OWN EXPERT IN CLOSING SUBMISSIONS
Today we are looking again at the judgment of Mrs Justice Cox in Sinclair -v- Joyner [2015] EWHC Civ 1800 (QB). Some important observations about the role of the expert and the conduct of the expert instructed by the defendant…
WITNESS STATEMENTS FULL OF VITRIOL – THIS IS NEVER GOING TO END WELL…
The “Covid Repeats” series next week will revisit some of those (many) cases where judges have found witness statements to be inadequate. The inclusion of unnecessary matters in witness statements is a continuing issue. It can be seen in the…
COVID REPEATS 34: EXPERTS, YACHTS AND THAT SINKING FEELING WHEN A CLAIMANT COMES TO GRIEF
Today we are looking back at the case of Hirtenstein -v- Hill Dickinson LLP [2014] EWHC 2711 (Comm) contains many interesting lessons for those involved in professional negligence litigation in particular. Here I just want to concentrate upon two:…
AFFIDAVITS, COMPULSION, EXHIBITS AND THE IMPLIED DUTY NOT TO DISCLOSE TO THIRD PARTIES: HIGH COURT DECISION
I am grateful to barrister Sarah Walker for sending me a copy of the judgment of Deputy Insolvencies and Companies Court Judge Kyriakides in the Official Receiver -v- Skeene & Bowers [2020] EWHC 1252. It concerned the issue of whether…
COVID REPEATS 29: “THERE IS NO PRIMER FOR SCUTTLERS”: THE JUDGE’S ASSESSMENT OF EVIDENCE WHERE (HE FOUND) THAT A SHIP WAS SUNK DELIBERATELY
We are looking again at the judgment of Mr Justice Teare in Kairos Shipping Ltd -v- The Standard Club Europe Ltd [2016] EWHC 2412 (Admlty) is a comprehensive lesson in thorough fact finding. “There is no primer or guide to…
PROVING THINGS 176: RELYING ON MEMORY FROM EVENTS A LONG TIME BACK
I am grateful to David Platt QC for sending me a copy of the judgment given today of Geoffrey Tattersall QC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) in Bannister -v- Freemans Public Limited Company [2020] EWHC 1256 (QB). …
JOHNNY DEPP: LATE WITNESS STATEMENTS & THE COURTS: JUDGE CURTAILS THE EVIDENCE THAT CAN BE CALLED
The judgment of Mr Justice Nicol in Depp II v News Group Newspapers Ltd & Anor [2020] EWHC 1237 (QB) is interesting because the judge grants relief from sanctions because of a delay in service of witness statements. More significantly,…
COVID REPEATS 8: “NEVER WRITE ANYTHING DOWN THAT YOU WOULDN’T WANT READ OUT IN OPEN COURT”
I am repeating this because it is important. One rule that every lawyer should learn is that if you write, type, email or text anything you live with the risk that it could end up being read out in court….
DIVISIONAL COURT FINDS THAT EXPERT IN CONTEMPT OF COURT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ERASED FROM MEDICAL REGISTER: “NEW” EVIDENCE ADMITTED
The judgment of the Divisional Court today in General Medical Council & Ors v Zafar [2020] EWHC 846 (Admin) provides an interesting sequel to the earlier judgments in relation to contempt of court by a doctor who had been seriously…
COURT OF APPEAL OVERTURNS FINDINGS OF FACT: THE STANDARD OF PROOF FOR DISHONESTY: ALSO DELAY OF 22 MONTHS IN GIVING JUDGMENT UNACCEPTABLE
In Bank St Petersburg PJSC & Anor v Arkhangelsky & Anor [2020] EWCA Civ 408 the Court of Appeal ordered a retrial because of doubts in relation to the trial judge’s findings of fact. The judge had applied too high…
GIVING THE SOURCE OF INFORMATION AND BELIEF IN A WITNESS STATEMENT: NOT A MERE TECHNICALITY: FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH RULES CAN HAVE MAJOR CONSEQUENCES
This blog has dealt, many times, with the difficulties that can arise when a solicitor makes a witness statement in support of an interlocutory application. Not least there is a duty to give details of the source of information and…
DEFENDANT’S PART 20 CLAIM AGAINST CLAIMANT’S WITNESSES STRUCK OUT: WITNESSES HAVE IMMUNITY (AND THIS HAS CONSEQUENCES…)
I am grateful to barrister David Green for supplying me with a note* of the judgment of HHJ Saggerson in Holley -v- Woodburn. HHJ Saggerson, Central London County Court). A copy of the judgment is available here C65YX969 Holley v…
ATTEMPTING TO APPEAL A FINDING OF FACT? SET THIS OUT EXPLICITLY IN THE NOTICE OF APPEAL: CLEAR GUIDANCE FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL
In Taylor v Rhino Overseas Inc. [2020] EWCA Civ 353 the Court of Appeal set out guidance for a party attempting to appeal a finding of fact. The fact that such an appeal is being made must be set out…
PROVING THINGS 175: WHEN THE TRIAL JUDGE IS ASKED TO CONSIDER THE QUALITY OF CUDDLY TOYS IN COURT: CPR 33.6 AND ITS SIGNIFICANCE
There is an interesting reminder of the provisions of CPR 33.6 in the judgment of HHJ Russen QC (sitting as a High Court Judge) in Dowman Imports Ltd v 2 Toobz Ltd (Rev 1) [2020] EWHC 291 (Comm). The judge…
EXPERT WITNESSES: HANDING THE JUDGE AN UNSORTED MEDLEY OF DOCUMENTS MAY NOT GO DOWN TOO WELL
There was one aspect of the evidence mentioned in the judgment Morrow v Shrewsbury Rugby Union Football Club Ltd [2020] EWHC 379 (QB) Mrs Justice Farbey that was somewhat unusual. An expert handed the judge a “file of documents” to…
THE VULNERABLE CLAIMANT GIVING EVIDENCE: GROUND RULES AND INTERMEDIARIES: “I HAVE STRONG RESERVATIONS ABOUT WHETHER ANY OF THE GROUND RULES WERE NECESSARY”
In the judgment today in Morrow v Shrewsbury Rugby Union Football Club Ltd [2020] EWHC 379 (QB) Mrs Justice Farbey considered a case that involved a vulnerable claimant. The judgment contains some scepticism as to whether the ground rules set…
EARLY NEUTRAL EVALUATION BY THE COURTS: PRACTICAL GUIDANCE AS TO PROCEDURE AND IMPLEMENTATION
There is a short judgment of Master McCloud today in Telecom Centre (UK) Ltd v Thomas Sanderson Ltd (Early Neutral Evaluation) [2020] EWHC 368 (QB) which contains some important observations on the practical implementation of Early Neutral Evaluation by the…
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE STATEMENT OF TRUTH (2): WHY LAWYERS SHOULD THINK (MORE THAN TWICE) BEFORE SIGNING IT
Given the imminent changes to the statement of truth this is a good time to consider the problems that can occur when a lawyer signs a statement of truth on behalf of their client. There are some cases that make…
THE DISCLOSURE PILOT: GUIDANCE GIVEN AS TO HOW IT SHOULD WORK: NOT A STICK WITH WHICH TO BEAT YOUR OPPONENT
There are two recent cases where the disclosure pilot is considered in detail. In McParland & Partners Ltd & Anor v Whitehead [2020] EWHC 298 (Ch) Sir Geoffrey Vos. Chancellor of the High Court set out some definitive guidance as…
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE STATEMENT OF TRUTH (1): WHY IT NEEDED “BEEFING UP” (THE RULES COMMITTEE COULD HAVE DONE THIS FIVE YEARS AGO…)
Yesterday was, by a long way, the busiest day on this blog ever. The reason for this being that everyone is anxious to know the new wording for the statement truth. There is a need for a short series on…
A WITNESS STATEMENT “SIGNED OFF ON, WITH INSUFFICIENT CONSIDERATION AND SCRUTINY”
Lawyers are always, one would hope, telling clients and witnesses to read draft witness statements with care prior to signing them. An example of the problems that a failure to consider the matter in detail can be seen in the…
LATE COSTS BUDGET: RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS GRANTED: DEFENDANT DROPPED THE BALL BUT THIS WAS FORGIVABLE
In Manchester Shipping Ltd v Balfour Shipping Ltd & Anor [2020] EWHC 164 (Comm) Lionel Persey QC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) granted relief from sanctions to a defendant who had filed a costs budget late. The case…
CIVIL PROCEDURE AND COSTS: BLOG AND ARTICLES ROUND UP – JANUARY 2020
Links and articles to blog posts and articles available online in January 2020 Costs Costs Barrister Conditional fee agreements and contentious business agreements Association for Costs Lawyers Oversight regulator praises CLSB’s “considerable progress” Association for Costs Lawyers Offer acceptanc… Enjoying this post? Become…
PROVING THINGS 172: SPECULATION BY THE DEFENDANT IS NOT EVIDENCE: A CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CASE
The judgment of Mr Justice Turner in Morrison v Liverpool Women’s NHS Foundation Trust [2020] EWHC 91 (QB) is another illustration of a party asserting something but having no evidence to support it. This time it was a defendant whose…
SOCIAL MEDIA AND THE PERSONAL INJURY LAWYER: WEBINAR 31st MARCH 2020
On the 31st March I am giving a webinar on Social Media and the Personal Injury Lawyer. This webinar looks at two things in detail (i) The ways in which PI lawyers can use social media as a resource to…
REDACTING DOCUMENTS: MAY CAUSE ENQUIRIES TO BE MADE AND EXPLANATIONS MAY NEED TO BE GIVEN
One other aspect of the judgment of HHJ Lethem in Ivanoy -v- Lubble (Central London County Court 17th January 2020) is in the orders made after the judgment. It concerns the redaction of documents. THE CASE The primary issue in the…
DISCLOSURE OF SURVEILLANCE EVIDENCE LATE: THE FACT THAT THE GENIE IS OUT OF THE BOTTLE IS NOT ENOUGH: AN INTERESTING HIGH COURT DECISION
Angus Fergusson has kindly sent me a copy of the judgment of Mr Justice Birss in Grant -v- Newport City Council [2018] EWHC 3813, it is an interesting case where the judge, on appeal, upheld a decision to refuse…
A DECISION THAT WAS “UNJUST BECAUSE OF SERIOUS PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITY AND MULTIPLE ERRORS OF LAW”: WHEN DECISIONS ARE NOT BASED ON THE EVIDENCE
I have hesitated before writing about the judgment in H v F [2020] EWHC 86 (Fam). The judgment reviews a highly disturbing first instance decision. I know that many family law commentators have already commented on the case and I…
FAILING TO TURN UP TO A TRIAL: DEFENDANT’S APPLICATION REFUSED: CPR 39.3(3) CONSIDERED
This blog has looked several times at the issues relating to CPR 39.3(3), the rule that governs an application when a party fails to attend a trial or hearing. The rule was considered by Mrs Justice Lambert in KD v…
GIVING EVIDENCE OF MATTERS THAT HAPPENED 17 YEARS EARLIER: AN EXAMPLE IN THE CONTEXT OF CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE
This blog has looked at the issues relating to memory and witness evidence many times. Particularly the problems of people giving evidence many years after the event. An example of these difficulties can be seen in the judgment of Mrs…
11th HOUR APPLICATION TO INTRODUCE NEW WITNESS EVIDENCE (AND A NEW CASE) REFUSED
In Crumpler & Anor (Liquidators Of Peak Hotels And Resorts Ltd v Candey Limited [2019] EWHC 3558 (Ch) HHJ Davis-White QC (sitting as a High Court judge) refused a party relief from sanctions where witness statements were served late. The…
ATTEMPTING TO GIVE EVIDENCE IN SUBMISSIONS AND SUBMISSIONS IN EVIDENCE: SHOULD THE TWAIN EVER MEET?
The recent post on the Post Office case and the defendant’s attempts to introduce new evidence at the submissions stage has caused me to revisit a post from several years ago. This was, in turn, caused by a recollection of…
CIVIL PROCEDURE AND COSTS: BLOG AND ARTICLES ROUND UP – DECEMBER 2019
Links and articles to blog posts and articles available online from December 2019. Costs Costs Barrister Cash flow and catastrophic personal injury litigation Costs Barrister Fixed costs and translation fees Association for Costs Lawyers Court can order costs in foreign…
PROVING THINGS 170: YOU CAN’T GIVE EVIDENCE BY WAY OF SUBMISSIONS (HONESTLY, YOU CAN’T)
One important aspect of the judgment in Bates & Ors v the Post Office Ltd (No 6: Horizon Issues) [2019] EWHC 3408 (QB) is the judge’s criticism of the defendant’s attempt to give “evidence” at the stage of closing submissions….
You must be logged in to post a comment.