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…
WHEN LESSONS ARE NOT LEARNT: “IDENTICAL WITNESS STATEMENTS” : COPY AND PASTE FUNCTION OF A WORD PROCESSOR WILL NOT IMPRESS A JUDGE
It is worth looking in more detail at the the judgment of Mr Justice Fraser in Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd v Merit Merrell Technology Ltd [2018] EWHC 1577 (TCC). In particular on witness statements. The judgment sets out some important lessons (it…
PROVING THINGS 115: WHEN HANDWRITTEN NOTES OF MEETINGS VARY FROM THE TYPED VERSION (AND THERE IS MORE…)
For the second time in recent weeks I am looking at how a judge assesses evidence in a family case. Again this shows issues of general importance and relevance in the relation of those responsible for gathering evidence in the…
PROVING THINGS 113: POOR EVIDENCE COLLECTION: EXPERTS STRAYING WELL BEYOND THEIR REMIT AND WHO ARE “NOT ENTITLED TO REACH THAT CONCLUSION”
Family cases, however, often come up with interesting observations in relation to the judge’s role as a fact finder. Similarly much can be gained by looking at the judge’s observations on experts. We see a critique of the process of…
WITNESS DEMEANOUR: NOT THAT IMPORTANT (INDEED PROBABLY UNIMPORTANT): COURT OF APPEAL DECISION
I am grateful to Laurie Anstis for drawing my attention to the decision of the Court of Appeal decision in SS (Sri Lanka), R (On the Application Of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWCA Civ 1391….
THE NATURE OF EXPERT EVIDENCE: THIS IS NOT EXPERT EVIDENCE AT ALL – AND OF NO HELP TO ME: JUDGE NOT IMPRESSED BY “ATTACHMENT THEORY”
It is rare for the court to reject “expert” evidence placed before it on the grounds that it is not expert evidence at all. This is rarer still now that permission is normally required before expert evidence can be adduced. It…
APPLICATION TO ADDUCE NEW EVIDENCE: COURT OF APPEAL WOULD NOT BE MOVED
In The National Guild of Removers & Storers Ltd v Bee Moved Ltd & Ors [2018] EWCA Civ 1302 the Court of Appeal refused the appellant’s application to adduce new evidence. It is a a case that highlights the difficulties of…
THIS IS NOT A “PLEADING POINT”: WHY LISTS OF ISSUES NEED TO BE CAREFULLY DRAFTED: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION
In Scicluna v Zippy Stitch Ltd & Ors [2018] EWCA Civ 1320 the Court of Appeal reiterated the importance of the list of issues. This relates to procedure in the Employment Tribunal however, as the judgment points out, lists of issues…
PROVING THINGS 107: PROVING A “STAGED CRASH” TO THE CRIMINAL STANDARD: CCTV EVIDENCE PROVIDES CONVINCING EVIDENCE
In Aviva Insurance Ltd v Nazir & Anor [2018] EWHC 1296 (QB) His Honour Judge Gosnell (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) found the two defendants in contempt of court when they had taken part in a staged crash and…
PROVING THINGS 106: YOU DIDN’T COMPLY WITH YOUR OWN RISK ASSESSMENT AND YOU WANT TO APPEAL: COURT REJECTS DEFENDANT’S ARGUMENT THAT CLAIMANT FAILED TO PROVE CAUSATION
In CC v Leeds City Council [2018] EWHC 1312 (QB) Mr Justice Turner reiterates the importance of the risk assessment in personal injury litigation. On appeal the judge rejected an argument that a claimant had failed to prove causation. The defendant’s…
PROVING THINGS 105: BURDEN ON CLAIMANT TO PROVE A DEFECT: THE DIFFICULT TASK OF APPEALING FINDINGS OF FACT ON APPEAL
I am grateful to Matthew Snarr for sending me a copy of the judgment, given yesterday, in Bond -v- Tom Croft (Bolton) Ltd [2018] EWHC 1290 QB. It contains an important observation about the burden of proof in establishing that…
CLAIMANTS WERE NOT CREDIBLE: DEFENDANT’S APPEAL SUCCESSFUL: “THE DEFENDANT PRESENTED AN ANSWERABLE CASE THAT THE CLAIMANTS FAILED TO PROVE THEIR CASE”
In Richards & Anor v Morris [2018] EWHC 1289 (QB) the defendant was successful in appealing on the grounds that the trial judge should have made more robust findings from the lack of credibility on the part of the claimants. There…
PROVING THINGS 104: “THERE IS NO EVIDENCE BEFORE ME AS TO HOW THE PLAINTIFF WOULD PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF A GHOST”
I don’t normally travel too far from England and Wales in the Proving Things series. However a kind reader sent me an article on the Canadian decision in Ont. Inc. v K-W Labour Association et al, 2013 ONSC 5401 (CanLII). It…
PROVING THINGS 99: THE ROLE OF THE JOINTLY INSTRUCTED EXPERTS: TRIAL JUDGE COULD PREFER VIEWS OF OTHER EXPERT
The opinion of a single joint expert is not binding on the court. This is clear from the judgment of Mr Justice Turner today in HJ v Burton Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2018] EWHC 1227 (QB) “The opinion of a single…
PROVING THINGS 96: A WITNESS MAY NOT BE TELLING LIES – BUT THEIR MEMORY MAY WELL BE BIASED: ASSESSING EVIDENCE WHEN FRIENDS FALL OUT
One of the hardest tasks of litigation is trying to assess the credibility of a witness, particularly your own witness. Litigants can (and often do) have strong views about the case and what they said and did. The fact that…
BELIEVING YOUR CLIENTS: CAN THEY AFFORD IT? THE COMPLEX ISSUE OF “TRUTH” AND “LIES”: WHAT DOES THE LAWYER DO?
There are two sources for this post. The first is a blog by Lucy Reed on Pink Tape “It’s not my job to believe you – here’s why” ; the second is the judgment in Ruffell -v- Lovatt HHJ Hughes 4 April 2018. …
PROVING THINGS 93: PROVING A WILL: THERE ARE SPECIFIC RULES THAT THE PARTIES SHOULD FOLLOW
I cannot remember the last time I read a case where the Court of Appeal heard evidence from witnesses (who had not been heard below) and made a request that it have sight of original documents. This is what happened…
CIVIL PROCEDURE – BACK TO BASICS 7: BUNDLES: A CHANCE TO REVISIT “SEDLEY’S LAWS”
If there is a league for blogs with the most number of posts about bundles then Civil Litigation Brief may well be in the top 10 (sadly I suspect even in the top place). There is a reason for this….
PROVING THINGS 91: HOW TELLING IS A “FIST BUMP”? A JUDGE NOTICES THINGS THAT GO ON OUTSIDE THE WITNESS BOX
There are a number of issues that arise in the judgment of Mrs Justice Yip in the judgment today Clark v Farley & Anor [2018] EWHC 1007 (QB). It shows how how a defendant failed to prove its case and the…
VULNERABLE WITNESSES IN THE CIVIL COURTS: EXISTING GUIDANCE AND THE IICSA RECOMMENDATIONS
The criminal and family courts have developed sophisticated methods for dealing with vulnerable witnesses. There is relatively little guidance in the civil courts. This was an issue noted yesterday in the interim report of Independent Inquiry Child Sex Abuse. Here…
CIVIL PROCEDURE – BACK TO BASICS 4: WHAT NOT TO PUT IN A WITNESS STATEMENT: “INADMISSIBLE AND IRRELEVANT OPINION, SUBMISSION, SPECULATION AND INNUENDO”
This is a very basic point. A witness statement should consist of evidence. That principle is often breached in interlocutory applications, as we have seen. However when a lawyer does this, or allows it to happen, in a witness statement…
CIVIL PROCEDURE – BACK TO BASICS 3: THE STATEMENT OF TRUTH
The aim of this series is to look at things that litigators do every day – almost automatically. Signing a statement of truth is one of those things. This is a regular occurrence in many solicitor’s offices. It is a…
PROVING THINGS 88: MATTERS YOU HAVE TO PROVE IF YOU WANT AN INJUNCTION: THE IMPACT OF A SIX MONTH DELAY IN APPLYING
In Blade Motor Group Ltd v Reynolds & Reynolds Ltd [2018] EWHC 497 (Ch) an applicant for an injunction failed because it failed to prove the basic requirements. The fact that there was a six-month delay in applying for the injunction…
CIVIL PROCEDURE – BACK TO BASICS 2: “EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT” OF AN APPLICATION
The previous post looked at some of the basic requirements of an application to the court. Here we look at the evidence that may be needed in support of an application. The key point here being “evidence”. Numerous hours are…
WHEN THE JUDGE IS ENTITLED NOT TO DECIDE ON THE EVIDENCE: PLUS THE IMPORTANT ISSUE OF CONDUCT AND COSTS
The Court of Appeal decision today in Constandas v Lysandrou & Ors [2018] EWCA Civ 613 illustrates two distinct issues: The position when a judge is unable to make a finding on the evidence. What conduct can lead to a successful…
HOW A COURT ASSESSES WITNESS EVIDENCE: A SHORT PRIMER
We have already looked at the decision of the upper tribunal in Conegate Ltd v Revenue & Customs (CAPITAL GAINS TAX – purchase of shares) [2018] UKFTT 82 (TC) in relation to issues of privilege and without prejudice discussions. The same judgment…
WITHOUT PREJUDICE COMMUNICATIONS & WAIVING PRIVILEGE IN A WITNESS STATEMENT: TAXING MATTERS
A post earlier this week looked at the issue of privilege and the third edition of the standard work on the topic. It is worthwhile looking at the decision in Conegate Ltd v Revenue & Customs (CAPITAL GAINS TAX – purchase…
You must be logged in to post a comment.