PROVING THINGS 72: THE BARRISTER’S LAMENT: BUNDLES WHEN THE CLAIMANT DOES THE DEFENDANT’S JOB FOR THEM
Much has been written on this blog about the preparation of bundles. Some bundles are prepared on the basis that every single disclosed document should be included. In doing so many claimants are causing harm to their own case. Disclosed…
SOCIAL MEDIA, DOCTOR FREUD AND “MARINATING IN A MUTUAL HATRED”: THE JUDICIAL USE OF FOOTNOTES
Regular readers of this blog will need little introduction to the work of Canadian judge J.W. Quinn. J. Here I look at the use of footnotes in his judgment in a family case of Bruni -v- Bruni in 2010 (this…
THE THINGS YOU FIND OUT HALF WAY THROUGH A TRIAL… A CASE VERY MUCH TO POINT
The case of Jollah, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (No. 2) [2017] EWHC 2821 (Admin) makes fascinating reading. It is an object lesson in the need to ask searching questions when representing a…
WIKIPEDIA IN THE COURTS (SO FAR): MUSIC, BREWERIES, CANALS, DOG WHISTLE POLITICS AND GETTING TO THE HEART OF THE MATTER: SOME QUESTIONS TO BE ASKED
I have had to apologise in the past for taking small parts of a judicial judgment and scrutinising them closely in relation to matters of procedure or evidence. This apology is particularly apposite in relation to the judgment in Oldham Metropolitan…
PROVING THINGS 71: NO EVIDENCE AT ALL: NO DAMAGES AT ALL
In Khan v Stockton-On-Tees Borough Council [2017] UKUT 432 (LC) we see another examples of a total failure to prove damages. I include it as another example of a party attending a hearing with no evidence at all to prove a…
BUNDLES – AGAIN: BORROWING FROM THE COMMERCIAL COURT GUIDE
For many years a post on preparing a trial bundle was, by far, the most read post on this blog. I have re-visited the issue recently. It is worthwhile all practitioners having a look at the specific guidance on bundles…
ANOTHER SORRY TALE – FORGING SIGNATURES ON WITNESS STATEMENTS: A “PRECEDENT” WITNESS STATEMENT CAN RARELY BE A GOOD THING
The Law Society Gazette carries an account of a solicitor struck off for “forging” the signature on witness statements. I want to concentrate on the way that the witness statements themselves were produced. This was not dishonest but is worrying….
A LESSON FOR ANYONE DRAFTING WITNESS STATEMENTS: GO ON – HAVE A BIT OF A DIG: WHAT CAN POSSIBLY GO WRONG?
The judgment of Mr Justice Fraser in Riva Properties Ltd & Ors v Foster + Partners Ltd [2017] EWHC 2574 (TCC) contains further examples of the dangers of making comments in witness statements. A witness statement is for facts, comments and stage…
ATTACKING THE OTHER SIDE’S CREDIBILITY: DEFENDANTS ARE THE ARCHITECTS OF THEIR OWN DOWNFALL: SELF-SERVING STATEMENTS ARE TO NO AVAIL
There are a lot of reasons why litigators should read the judgment of Mr Justice Fraser in Riva Properties Ltd & Ors v Foster + Partners Ltd [2017] EWHC 2574 (TCC). Not least is the judge’s assessment of the witness evidence…
THE ASSESSMENT OF EXPERT EVIDENCE: HANDWRITING EVIDENCE ADMISSIBLE : THE JUDGE FELT HE WAS IN SAFE HANDS
The judgment of Mr Justice Jay in ARB v IVF Hammersmith Ltd [2017] EWHC 2438 (QB) is one that has already made headlines. There is much of interest. However, that part of the judgment that deals with the analysis of…
THE CIVIL STANDARD OF PROOF AND ALLEGATIONS OF DISHONESTY: AVOIDING HINDSIGHT
In Group Seven Ltd & Anor v Nasir & Ors [2017] EWHC 2466 (Ch) Mr Justice Morgan considered issues relating to the standard of proof when there are allegations of dishonesty and fraud. Part of the judgment also deals with the…
WHEN THE CLAIMANT WAS REFUSED PERMISSION TO ACCEPT £300,000: WHAT HAPPENED NEXT? (THIS DOESN’T END WELL FOR SOMEONE)
Earlier this week there was a post on the case of Houghton (Stanley) -v- P.B. Donaghue (Haulage & Plant Hire Ltd & Ors) [2017] EWHC 1738 (Ch) in which a claimant was refused permission to accept an offer of £300,000 after…
EVIDENCE IN A CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CASE: MISSING WITNESSES AND ERRANT EXPERTS: LIABILITY SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADMITTED EARLIER: ATTEMPT TO BACKTRACK FROM JOINT REPORT NOT SUCCESSFUL
The case of Palmer v Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust [2017] EWHC 2460 (QB) is one where the defendant was, ultimately, successful on the issue of causation. However the judge had some interesting observations as to the expert evidence called by both…
WITNESSES, SURVEILLANCE, DEMEANOUR AND EXPERTS – IT ALL COMES DOWN TO CREDIBILITY: A PERFORMER UNLIKELY TO FOOL ALL OF THE PEOPLE ALL OF THE TIME
We have already looked at judge’s observations as to the amount of material before the court in the case of Miley v Friends Life Ltd [2017] EWHC 2415 (QB). It was a case that rested upon credibility. Surveillance evidence, expert evidence and…
THIS IS A LOT OF MATERIAL FOLKS: ALL THIS INDUSTRY MAY NOT BE TO POINT: SEEING THE WOOD FOR THE TREES
In Miley v Friends Life Ltd [2017] EWHC 2415 (QB) Mr Justice Turner made some observations in relation to the volume of documentation and the subsequent judgment. It is important, he said, for a judge to keep sight of the wood…
DISPUTE BETWEEN SOLICITORS: PERMISSION TO AMEND REFUSED AS IT WAS A COLLATERAL ATTACK ON AN EARLIER DECISION: CONCESSION MADE BY MISTAKE CANNOT BE WITHDRAWN
In Mark Lewis Law Ltd & Anor v Taylor Hampton Solicitors Ltd & Anor [2017] EWHC 2359 (QB) Mrs Justice Whipple DBE refused an application by the defendant solicitors to amend its counterclaim shortly before trial. It is a case that…
“MULTIPLE SERIOUS ERRORS” IN JUDICIAL DECISION MAKING : THE UPPER TRIBUNAL DECISION IN FULL
The case of AA069062014 & Ors. [2017] UKAITUR AA069062014 has already attracted considerable attention on social media and beyond. The Upper Tribunal (Immigration & Asylum Chamber) considered appeals in 14 cases. The major issue was the tribunal judge. Here are the…
WHEN A JUDGMENT STARTS “OH DEAR, OH DEAR, OH DEAR”: CAR CRASHES AND MOTORWAY PILE UPS IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL: UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE RENDERED SPEECHLESS
This blog sometimes looks at tribunal decisions, primarily in the context of procedural issues. These issues abound in the decision of Upper Tribunal judge Nicholas Wikeley in AF v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (DLA) (No2) (Tribunal procedure and…
WHEN ONE EXPERT TELLS THE OTHER EXPERT TO “GO BACK TO SCHOOL”: CASES ON CONDUCT AND THE MEETING OF EXPERTS
The case of Hatfield -v- Drax Power Ltd (18/08/2017)* highlights some of the issues that arise in the meeting of experts. The meeting is an important stage in many types of action, however the case law and rules relating to it…
AN EXPERT REPORT THAT WAS “EXTRAORDINARY IN ITS PRESENTATION AND SHOT THROUGH WITH BREATH TAKING ARROGANCE”: THIS DOESN’T END WELL
Problems caused by expert witnesses feature heavily on this blog. I am grateful to barrister Brian McCluggage for sending me a copy of the decision of Her Honour Judge Belcher in Hatfield -v- Drax Power Ltd (18/08/2017) which contains robust…
THROWING EVERYTHING IN AT TRIAL- INCLUDING THE KITCHEN CABINET: YOU HAVE TO PUT YOUR CASE (AND PLEAD IT)
There are some important observations in the judgment of Mr Justice Henry Carr in Neptune (Europe) Ltd v Devol Kitchens Ltd [2017] EWHC 2172 (Pat) about the need to plead and put a case at trial. An attempt to introduce a…
EXPERT WITNESS GIVEN “NO WEIGHT AT ALL”: FAILURE TO DISCLOSE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST
There are some interesting passages in the judgment of David Stone (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) in Technomed Ltd & Anor v Bluecrest Health Screening Ltd & Anor [2017] EWHC 2142 (Ch). Here we look at the judgment…
PROVING THINGS 66: IT ALL COMES DOWN TO THE CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES: WHERE THERE’S A WILL THERE’S A WAY
This blog regularly looks at cases in which trial judges assess the credibility of witnesses. Here I want to look at the careful analysis of witness evidence by HHJ Paul Matthews (sitting as a High Court judge) in Legg & Anor…
WITNESS STATEMENTS “INADMISSIBLE”: CONTAINED “SUBJECTIVE INTENTION”, “OPINION” AND “LEGAL ARGUMENT”: ANOTHER EXAMPLE
A brief passage under the judgment of Mr Justice Arnold in Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd v Fougera Sweden Holding 2 AB [2017] EWHC 1995 (Ch) serves to show how much “witness evidence” served by a litigant can, in fact, be inadmissible….
DEFENDANT DEBARRED FROM CALLING WITNESS EVIDENCE AT TRIAL: COURT OF APPEAL OVERTURNS FINDING FOR DEFENDANT
The case of Durrant -v- Chief Constable of Avon & Somerset Constabulary is a long-running saga. We have looked at it twice before. The incident occurred in 2009. In 2013 the Court of Appeal overturned a judge’s decision to grant…
WRITING TO THE COURT UNILATERALLY (AGAIN) – PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS AND WHY JUDGES NEED THE PATIENCE OF A SAINT
I have no plans to expand this blog to cover issues relating to procedure in Employment Tribunals. However there are certain passages of the judgment of Mr Justice Kerr in Jones v The Secretary of State for Business Innovation &…
PROVING HANDWRITING IN CIVIL CASES: EXPERT EVIDENCE NOT ALWAYS NECESSARY
I am returning to the decision of Chief Master Marsh in 44 Wellfit Street Ltd v GMR Services Ltd [2017] EWHC 1841 (Ch). We have already looked at that case in relation to false emails and the significance of CPR 32.19 ….
THE JOB OF THE COURT IN CIVIL CASES: A USEFUL PRIMER: ADJUDICATION, THE BURDEN OF PROOF: THE JUDGE DOES NOT DECIDE WHO HAS THE MORAL HIGH GROUND
In Ball & Ors v Ball & Ors [2017] EWHC 1750 (Ch) HHJ Paul Matthews (sitting as a Judge of the High Court) set out clearly and succinctly the principles by which the civil courts determine cases. They serve as a…
“MUST” MEANS “MUST”: WHEN CRUCIAL PARTS OF YOUR EVIDENCE AMOUNTS TO NO MORE THAN GOSSIP AND RUMOUR IT CAN BE COSTLY.
I have already written that there are many reasons litigators should read the judgment of Lady Justice Thirwall in Marsh -v- Ministry of Justice [2017] EWHC 1040 (QB) (the subsequent judgment on costs is also worth reading and will be covered soon)….
UNDOUBTED FLAWS IN THE WAY WITNESS STATEMENTS WERE DRAFTED: LEADS TO A WASTE OF TIME AND COSTS
There are many reasons litigators should read the judgment of Lady Justice Thirwall in Marsh -v- Ministry of Justice [2017] EWHC 1040 (QB, Here I want to concentrate upon the witness statements, in particular the defendant’s witness statements. It is another…
ERRANT EVIDENCE AND PHYSICAL EVIDENCE THAT GOES MISSING: CLAIMANT’S EXPERTS FEEL THE HEAT
I am returning for the fifth time to the decision of Mr Justice Fraser in Imperial Chemical Industries Limited -v- Merit Merrell Technology Limited [2017] EWHC 1763 (TCC). We have seen the judge’s views on the witnesses, the claimant’s disclosure and arguments that…
COUNSEL’S OPINION OF NO VALUE AT ALL: (ON THIS OCCASION ANYWAY)
I am returning for the fourth time (and still not the last time) to the decision of Mr Justice Fraser in Imperial Chemical Industries Limited -v- Merit Merrell Technology Limited [2017] EWHC 1763 (TCC). The parties had exchanged written opinions of leading counsel…
DEFICIENCIES IN DISCLOSURE: READING THIS JUDGMENT IS NOT LIKE WATCHING PAINT DRY
A case that concerns the fitting of specialist piping at a paint factory may seem an unlikely starting point for procedural controversy. However I am looking again in the judgment of Mr Justice Fraser in Imperial Chemical Industries Limited -v- Merit…
ABSENT WITNESSES CONSIDERED: REASONS FOR ABSENCE NOT ACCEPTED COMPARED TO CIVIL EVIDENCE ACT NOTICE
In Coreix Ltd -v- Coretx Holdings [2017] EWHC 1695 (IPEC) the trial judge was faced with the approach that should be adopted in relation to witnesses that were not at trial. THE CASE The action was a for breach of trademark…
EXPERTS NOT WELLCOME HERE (NOT YET ANYWAY): PARTIES NEED TO ESTABLISH NEED FOR EXPERT EVIDENCE
In Glaxo Wellcome Uk Limited -v- Sandoz Limited [2017] EWHC 1524 (Ch) Chief Master Marsh refused the defendants’ application to rely on three expert witnesses. The judgment contains interesting observations on the nature of the information that needs to be…
ADVERSE INFERENCES FROM ABSENT WITNESSES: ANOTHER EXAMPLE IN THE HIGH COURT
In NRC Holding Limited -v- Danilitskiy [2017] EWHC 1431 (Ch) Robin Dicker QC, sitting as a High Court judge, considered the inferences that should be drawn when a key individual did not give evidence. THE CASE The claimant had a…
PROVING THINGS 62: “TOTALLY UNSATISFACTORY” EVIDENCE AT TRIAL FAILS TO PROVE SPECIAL DAMAGES
I wrote about the judgment in Stewart & Chergui -v- The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2017] EWHC 921 (QB), yesterday. There is no harm in repeating one element of that post in this series. I am repeating it because…
WHAT CAN A DEFENDANT ARGUE ABOUT DAMAGES WHEN ITS DEFENCE IS STRUCK OUT? NOTHING
What is the position of a defendant whose action has been struck out? This was the question considered by Mr Justice Soole in Michael -v- Phillips [2017] EWHC 1984 (QB). The short answer is the defendant cannot dispute any aspect…
WHEN THE WITNESSES ALL SAY THE SAME THING: A RECAP
There has been some discussion on Twitter this morning about the issues that arise when witnesses make statements that are, to all intents and purposes, identical. It provides an opportunity to look at some cases on this issue. They make…
JUDICIAL INTERVENTION, INTERRUPTIONS AND HOT TUBBING: JUDICIAL LATITUDE IS NOT UNLIMITED
In Shaw -v- Grouby [2017] EWCA Civ 233 the Court of Appeal made some observations about the dangers of a judge getting too inquisitorial in the course of a trial, particularly in the course of cross-examination. “The judge intervened in…
PROVING THINGS 59: TO GET SPECIAL DAMAGES YOU HAVE TO PLEAD THEM AND PROVE THEM (EVEN IN DEFAMATION CASES)
In Lisle-Mainwaring -v- Associated Newspapers Ltd [2017] EWHC 543 (QB) Judge Parkes QC (sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court) declined to award the claimant special damages for financial outlay on the grounds that they were never properly…
PROVING THINGS 58 : FAILURE TO PROVE CAUSATION LEADS TO AWARD OF NOMINAL DAMAGES
For the third time in recent weeks I write about a case where a claimant has spent much time, energy (and no doubt money) in bringing an action but only recovered nominal damages. In Plantation Holdings (FZ) LLC -v- Dubai…
APPEAL JUDGE OVERTURNS FINDINGS OF KNOWLEDGE IN AN ACTION AGAINST THE MIB
In Whyatt -v- Powell & the Motor Insurers Bureau [2017] EWHC 484 (QB) Mr Justice Lewis overturned the findings of the trial judge that three claimants had knowledge that a driver was not insured. The judgment considers what inferences a…
PROVING THINGS 56: A JUDGE WILL NOT SPECULATE WHEN MATTERS COULD HAVE BEEN PROVEN: COUNTERCLAIM FAILS FOR LACK OF EVIDENCE
The judgment of Mr Recorder Douglas Campbell QC in Starbuck -v- Patsystems (UK) Limited [2017] EWHC 397 (IPEC) illustrates issues in relating to recollection and credibility, it is another example of a claim (counterclaim in this case) failing because of…
THE PROCESS OF TAKING A STATEMENT: EXPLORED IN DETAIL IN OPEN COURT
The judgment of Master Bowles in Wilson -v- Lassman [2017] EWHC 85 (Ch) contains a detailed consideration of the way in which witness evidence was obtained. It highlights the importance of having a careful record of the way in which…
WHERE DOES THE TRUTH LIE? GESTMIN IN THE FAMILY COURTS
This blog has looked at the “Gestmin” guidance many times. I am grateful to Lucy Reed for pointing out that it has been considered in the context of family law. In Lachaux -v- Lachaux [2017] EWHC 385 (Fam) Mr Justice…
A WITNESS IN THE COURSE OF GIVING EVIDENCE IS IN PURDAH: THE ROLE OF THE LAWYER
The Employment Tribunal decision in Chidzoy -v- BBC (available here) contains an important lesson to lawyers and litigants alike. A witness in the course of giving evidence is in “purdah” – in that they should not discuss the case with…
PROVING THINGS 55: I’LL SAY IT AGAIN: NO EVIDENCE – NO DAMAGES
The judgment of Mrs Justice Jefford in Kingsgate Development Projects Lt -v- Jordan [2017]EWHC 343 (TCC) is (yet) another example of a claimant asserting damages but there being no evidence to prove them. The claimant ended up with a judgment…
ALL THE WITNESSES SAY EXACTLY THE SAME THING 10 YEARS AFTER THE EVENT: DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE (AND NOT BELIEVED)
In Patel -v- Patel [2017] Andrew Simmonds QC (sitting as a judge of the High Court) was considering the credibility of witnesses. The case is an interesting read in that it sets out detail of some of the cross-examination. It…
PROVING THINGS 53: BECAUSE A SOLICITOR WAS DISHONEST SOME OF THE TIME IT DOESN’T MEAN THEY WERE DISHONEST ALL OF THE TIME
The case of Pemberton Greenish LLP -v- Henry [2017] EWHC 246 (QB) provides an interesting assessment of witness evidence and demonstrates the difficulty in proving dishonesty. Mr Justice Jeremy Baker held that the fact that a solicitor was negligent, breached…
You must be logged in to post a comment.